pause_trigger

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

Annotations already cover read-only (false), destructive (false), and idempotency (true). The description adds clarity about what pausing/resuming actually does ('suspends automatic firing', 'resumes it') and notes the return value ('Returns trigger_id and the updated status'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 zero filler. The first sentence states the purpose and parameter semantics; the second handles alternative routing and return info. Information is densely packed and front-loaded, so an agent reads the essential purpose immediately.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and existing annotations, the description provides everything needed: purpose, parameter guidance, sibling distinction, and return value. No output schema exists, so mentioning the return is helpful. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description enriches them by explaining the meaning of 'paused' (true = suspend, false = resume) and the effect on the trigger, which is not fully conveyed by the schema alone. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Pause or resume') on a specific resource ('an existing trigger') and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'delete_trigger' by saying 'without deleting it'. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishable.

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 explicitly explains the confusing 'paused' parameter ('paused=true ... suspends automatic firing, paused=false resumes it') and names the sibling for a different use case ('Use delete_trigger to remove a trigger permanently instead'). This leaves no ambiguity for an agent about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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