Pause a schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the non-destructive nature (history kept, can be resumed) and the core effect (stops invoice generation). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a simple pause operation this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by important qualifiers. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (non-destructive, reversible) and the scope of effect (stops invoice generation). It could mention return value or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a simple pause action.

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% and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter at all. It is left implicit that 'id' refers to the schedule identifier, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal string type. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 ('stop'), resource ('a schedule'), and the key distinction from deletion: it does not delete, keeps history, and can be resumed. This clearly differentiates it from schedule_delete and schedule_resume siblings.

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 implies the alternative of deletion by emphasizing that history is kept and it can be resumed, which suggests using this instead of schedule_delete when preservation matters. However, it does not explicitly name schedule_resume or schedule_delete as alternatives or give explicit when-to-use conditions.

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