Pause Luca for a lead

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: explains that an in-flight draft stops at its next step, that opt-outs and crisis messages bypass the pause, that a repeat pause replaces the earlier one, and that timed pauses auto-resume. It also discloses auth requirements, idempotency-key handling, and data sensitivity — the destructiveHint=true effect (halting outbound messaging) is spelled out rather than left implicit.

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?

Effect statements are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by exceptions and semantics, which is the right ordering. The endpoint, scope, and workspace boilerplate at the end is useful but slightly repetitive of the schema field descriptions.

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?

Covers effects, exceptions, overwrite behavior, auto-resume, auth, and idempotency for a mutation tool, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Missing only guidance on failure modes (e.g., unknown lead id) and explicit sibling routing.

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?

Adds real meaning for the idempotencyKey (server generates one if omitted — retry safety) and for workspaceId/workspaceSlug (override the environment default), and maps the duration enum to plain-language values. The `id` parameter is only identifiable as the lead id through the endpoint path, not stated directly, so not everything is covered.

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 precise verb and resource with explicit scope: stop Luca from drafting replies, running cadences, and sending campaign messages for exactly one lead. This cleanly distinguishes it from luca_leads_drafting_resume (the inverse) and from workspace/cadence-wide pausing tools like luca_cadences_pause.

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 for use (single-lead suppression) and enumerates the duration choices, which tells the agent what inputs are valid. It never explicitly names the alternative tools (luca_leads_drafting_resume, luca_cadences_pause, luca_flag_for_human) or states when not to use this, so routing between siblings still requires inference.

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