Pause Cluster

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing that pausing is asynchronous, that databases become unavailable until resumed, and that an org-admin access token is required. The async behavior and availability impact are exactly the kind of traits annotations 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?

Sectioned into Purpose/Returns/Auth/Safety with the core action front-loaded, so an agent can skim efficiently. The bold headers are slightly heavy for the amount of content, but no sentence is filler.

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 no output schema, the description still explains the return value (the updated cluster and its lifecycle status), plus auth requirements, async timing, and safety consequences. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this mutation correctly 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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the description's brief mention of organization and cluster ID adds little. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 and resource ('Request that a RawTree dedicated cluster pause') with the target object named precisely. An agent can distinguish this from sibling mutations like resume-cluster, update-cluster, or delete-cluster without opening the schema.

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 a follow-up path ('Use get-cluster to check one cluster's progress') and a precondition (confirm org and cluster ID), but does not compare against alternatives such as resume-cluster or state when pausing is the right action versus other lifecycle operations. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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