pause_dag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is to 'pause' a DAG, implying a state change (likely from active to paused), but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., halts future runs, leaves current runs unaffected), permissions required, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 description is extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Pause a DAG by ID'. Every word earns its place—verb, resource, and identifier method—with zero redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations, 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., what pausing entails), error handling, return values, or prerequisites. For a tool that alters system state, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It specifies 'by ID', indicating the single parameter 'dag_id' is an identifier, but the schema already defines it as a string with 0% description coverage. This provides basic context but doesn't detail format (e.g., string pattern) or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, it partially compensates but remains vague.

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 'Pause a DAG by ID' clearly states the action (pause) and target resource (DAG), with 'by ID' specifying the identifier method. It distinguishes from siblings like 'unpause_dag' (opposite action) and 'delete_dag' (different operation), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., DAG must be active), exclusions (e.g., cannot pause if running), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'unpause_dag' or 'set_task_instances_state'. Usage is implied only by the verb 'pause'.

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