Pause check

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

The annotations already communicate mutability, idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: pausing suppresses ping expectations and alerting, nothing is lost during the pause, and there is a risk that actual job failures go undetected. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary action and effects, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence contributes useful information: what pausing does, how to reverse it, and an important operational caveat.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the action, effects, reversibility, and associated risk. The parameter schema handles input expectations, and the output schema handles return values. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the single parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema already explains the check UUID and how to obtain it.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Pauses a check,' then clarifies the exact effects: it stops expecting pings and stops alerting. It also distinguishes pause_check from resume_check and reassures that no state is lost, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly connects pause_check to resume_check, establishing the core use case of temporarily pausing monitoring. It also warns that a stopped job will go unnoticed while paused, which guides appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool versus other alternatives such as update_check or delete_check.

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