admin_toggle_engine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authorization ('White team only') but does not disclose consequences such as whether pausing interrupts an ongoing round, whether the change is immediately effective, or whether it is reversible. For a mutating admin operation, this is a notable gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning: the action and the access restriction.

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 zero-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the core function and access control. However, it omits return behavior and post-condition details, such as whether the tool returns a status or needs verification via admin_get_engine_status. The description is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter explanation is required. The baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('Pause or resume') and names the exact resource ('the scoring engine'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like admin_get_engine_status, which reads status rather than mutating it.

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 phrase 'White team only' provides a clear audience/authorization context, and the action itself makes the intended use obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or describe when to choose pause vs. resume, but no sibling tool performs this exact toggle, so the guidance is adequate.

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