Pause

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the maximum pause window, automatic resumption, and the idempotency contract for request_id (a repeated request returns the original deadline without extending it). It does not detail what monitoring data or alert behavior is affected while paused, but the core mutation semantics and reversibility are well disclosed.

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 definition is three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then id sources, idempotency, and permissions. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the mutation scope, timing limits, idempotency, and write-access requirement. It could say more about what happens to active alerts or monitoring data during the pause, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics not obvious from the schema alone: exactly one monitor or all monitors of one app, the 1440-minute cap, and the idempotent behavior of request_id when repeated.

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 states a specific verb (pause) and resource (exactly one monitor or every monitor of one app), including the scope and automatic-resume behavior. It clearly distinguishes the tool from adjacent monitoring and listing tools by naming its mutation effect and the id sources.

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 tells the agent where to obtain the required ids ('list_monitors or get_status') and notes the write-access prerequisite. It does not explicitly name when *not* to use it or compare it to other alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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