pauseContract

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that a future-dated start_date results in a scheduled pause with an 'active' status until that date. However, it does not describe success/return behavior, error conditions, or auth requirements beyond the schema's userContext.

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 four sentences long, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by imperative instructions and then behavioral details. Every sentence is necessary and provides distinct value, with no redundant or verbose content.

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 5 parameters (including nested userContext) and no output schema, the description explains key parameters (contractId, start_date, unpause_extension_policy, end_date) and the future-dated pause behavior. It references 'editPauseContract' for adjustments but omits details on the optional 'end_date' parameter and the userContext object. Overall, it is fairly complete but could cover the remaining nuance.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mandating user confirmation for 'start_date' and 'unpause_extension_policy' and explaining the future-dated pause behavior. This contextual information enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 'Pause an active contract,' specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'editPauseContract' and implies a counterpart 'resumeContract.'

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 instructs to ask the user for 'start_date' and 'unpause_extension_policy' and to avoid silent defaults. It mentions 'editPauseContract' as an alternative for adjustments but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if contract is already paused).

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