pause_dag

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond that: it clarifies the operation is reversible and highlights that it affects the shared scheduler, which is a important behavioral trait not covered by annotations.

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: two sentences, no redundancy. Every word adds value, stating the core action, reversibility, and a key side effect.

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 tool with one required param and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral note. It does not explain return values, but those are covered by the output schema. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisites or error conditions.

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% (the description does not mention the required 'dag_id' parameter). With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add any meaning or guidance about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action ('Pause') and resource ('a DAG'), with the additional note of reversibility. It is distinct from sibling tools like unpause_dag (reverse operation) and trigger_dag_run (different action).

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 clear context ('Reversible, but affects the shared scheduler'), implying when to use it and noting a side effect. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison to siblings beyond the reversal hint.

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