Pause DCA Plan

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) indicate a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds that the plan stops executing until resumed and returns the upstream API response, which is valuable context beyond annotations. It does not contradict 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 remarkably concise, consisting of only two sentences. It front-loads the core action and purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or verbosity.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the action, effect, return type, and provides a cross-reference to the resume tool. No additional information is needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (plan_id) described as 'Plan ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning, constraints, or examples for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but offers no extra semantic value.

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 (suspend) a DCA plan'), identifies the resource ('DCA plan'), specifies the required parameter ('by plan_id'), describes the effect ('stops executing until resumed'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like dca_resume and dca_stop.

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 tells when to use this tool (to pause a DCA plan) and directs to an alternative: 'Use dca_resume to restart.' This provides clear guidance on appropriate usage and distinguishes from the resume counterpart.

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