Pause a schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the pause is non-destructive, that due periods still accrue, that resume will back-bill, and that other tools will skip the paused schedule. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key nuance. No filler, no restating of the title.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the consequences of using it. Nothing material is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema documents only a required string 'id' with no description. The description implies the id identifies the schedule to pause but does not explicitly connect the parameter to the behavior. It adds some context but not much parameter-level detail.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('pause') and resource ('schedule'), and clearly distinguishes itself from deleting a schedule. It also references sibling tools by name, so an agent can tell this operation apart from invoice_generate_due, forecast, and schedule_skip.

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?

Explicitly explains when to pause rather than delete or skip: the schedule is not removed, due periods continue, and resuming will back-bill them. It also names schedule_skip as the alternative when only one period should be dropped.

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