Pause or Resume Serving

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: paused servings stop billing and stop answering requests, resuming restarts billing, and the confirm flag gates the costly direction. It also explains the operation_id contract (new ID = new operation, keep it across retries), which is exactly the kind of context the idempotentHint annotation cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and mode semantics, then confirmation gating, then the operation_id contract, then timeout recovery. Every sentence carries information, though the operation_id paragraph is dense and could be broken into shorter statements.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutation tool the description covers prerequisites, confirmation flow, idempotency, and failure recovery well; the only shortfall is the undocumented `serving` identifier.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — and it does for three of four: paused (true/false semantics and consequences), confirm (default false and what each value does), and operation_id (reuse from preview or generate a UUID, keep for retries). The required `serving` parameter is never explained, leaving a gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (pause/resume) plus the resource (a serving) and immediately clarifies the two modes via the paused flag. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as scale_serving, delete_serving, or deploy_serving, which an agent may also consider when changing a serving's lifecycle.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: pausing needs no confirmation, while resuming (paused=false) with confirm=false only previews state and requires a second call with confirm=true after user agreement. It also prescribes recovery behavior after a timeout (check operation_status and resource state before retrying).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.