Pause a broadcast

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: required OAuth scope (luca:queue_ops), data sensitivity level, the underlying POST endpoint, and the Idempotency-Key requirement with the fallback that the server generates one. It does not disclose reversibility (annotations flag destructiveHint=true, so an agent might want to know the pause can be resumed), and does not mention the idempotentHint=false behavior.

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?

Front-loads the one-line action statement, then a compact block of scopes/endpoint/idempotency/workspace notes. Dense but organized; minor redundancy between the description's idempotency sentence and the schema's idempotencyKey description.

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, return values need not be described, and the definition covers auth, sensitivity, idempotency, and workspace scoping. The remaining gap is the relationship to sibling operations (cancel/retry) and what pause implies for in-flight sends, but the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 60%, and the description compensates by explaining what the body reason is for ('optional operator reason'), the purpose of idempotencyKey for safe retries, and the workspace override semantics ('override the default workspace configured by environment') which the schema only states as 'optional id/slug override'.

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+resource ('Pause a running broadcast') and the endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related siblings in the same family such as luca_broadcasts_cancel or luca_broadcasts_retry, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Provides real operational context (required scopes, idempotency key handling, workspace override) but never says when to pause versus cancel or retry a broadcast. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explicitly framed against alternatives.

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