Pause a lead's cadence

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: required scopes (cadences:write, luca:queue_ops), redacted data sensitivity, the Idempotency-Key requirement and server-side key generation, and workspace override behavior. It could still say whether the pause is reversible or what happens to in-flight steps.

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 core action is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by compact, clearly separated operational notes. Every line carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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 not be explained, and auth, idempotency, and workspace behavior are covered. The remaining gap is the lack of any statement about the tool's relationship to `luca_pause_cadence` and whether pausing is reversible.

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 60%, and the description largely restates what the schema already documents for workspaceId/workspaceSlug/idempotencyKey. The `id` and `reason` parameters get no added meaning in the description, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Pause (cancel) a lead's running rescue cadence') plus the operation endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what happens. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `luca_pause_cadence`, which reads nearly identically, leaving genuine ambiguity about which to call.

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 never says when to use this tool versus `luca_pause_cadence` or `luca_cadences_rescue_start`, nor what state the lead must be in. Scope, idempotency, and workspace notes are invocation mechanics rather than usage guidance.

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