pause_device

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the device stays on wifi and reachable over the LAN, that the pause is recorded, that a root-run eclipse daemon enforces it within seconds, and that it is lifted via resume_device — consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true while adding real operational detail.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then mechanism, caveats and the reversal path. No filler, though the mechanism parenthetical and daemon timing detail could be tightened slightly.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers mechanism, side effects, enforcement latency and reversal. The remaining hole is parameter guidance, particularly accepted target values and the purpose of `reason`, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It implies the `target` can be a group, owner or device, but never documents target's expected format/identifier, and the optional `reason` parameter is not mentioned at all.

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 (cut off the internet) plus the resource (group, owner or device) and even the mechanism (Eclipse Pause / ARP interception). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like set_access or resume_device at a glance.

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 clear context: it is the immediate cutoff that works on already-connected devices, unlike the MAC block, and it explicitly names resume_device as the way to lift it. It stops short of naming the sibling MAC-block tool itself or stating hard exclusions, but the operative conditions are clear.

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