prufa_pause_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: stops cadence, keeps history, idempotent, and [Pro] feature. It does not detail what happens to running instances or permission requirements, but for a pause action it is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: four short statements covering purpose, effect, state, and plan requirement. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description is largely complete. It could mention the return value (e.g., updated monitor), but the core functionality is well-covered.

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 50% (only idempotency_key described in schema). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. The monitor_id parameter is left unexplained, but the schema provides its type.

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 'Pause a monitor' with the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like prufa_resume_monitor and prufa_delete_monitor by describing the effect (stops cadence, keeps history, idempotent).

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 implies when to use (to pause a monitor) and notes idempotency, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state prerequisites. However, the sibling context makes usage clear.

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