tv_pause_alerts

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: true, but the description states 'they stay defined but stop firing', implying the operation is not destructive and is reversible via tv_resume_alerts. This directly contradicts the destructiveHint annotation, making the behavioral disclosure unreliable. The description adds no clarifying context for the destructive flag, so it fails to provide transparent behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'MUTATES' and the action, followed by the return format and reversibility. No fluff; every sentence contributes. The 'Verified live' note is minor but not distracting.

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?

The description provides the return format and notes reversibility, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it does not address the destructiveHint contradiction or clarify the layout/expect_layout parameters beyond their schema descriptions. While the tool is relatively simple, the contradiction and lack of edge-case guidance make it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain them. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for full schema coverage. The mention of per-id return values is not parameter-specific.

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 clearly states the verb (stop/pause), the resource (alerts), and the mechanism (AlertsCollection.stopAlerts). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that alerts 'stay defined but stop firing' and explicitly mentions tv_resume_alerts as the reverse operation, making its 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?

It provides clear context: pausing alerts keeps them defined but stops firing, implying use when you want to temporarily disable them rather than delete. It also names the reverse tool (tv_resume_alerts). However, it does not explicitly contrast with tv_delete_alerts or state conditions for choosing this over other alert mutations, so a small gap remains.

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