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

With annotations already covering readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the current stage finishes, no agent is stopped, and the operation is reversible via resume_mission. It also discloses required permissions. It stops short of full transparency about edge cases like already-paused missions or effects on scheduled tasks.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The core behavior is stated first, followed by the key operational nuance and the alternative, then the prerequisite.

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 pause tool with one fully described parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral nuance, and authorization requirements. No additional return-value or parameter detail is needed.

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 100%, so the sole parameter issueId is fully documented in the schema, including format examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (hold/pause), resource (mission), and scope (before its next stage). It distinguishes itself from the sibling resume_mission by naming it as the continuation alternative, and 'no agent is stopped' implicitly contrasts with stop_mission.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it ('before its next stage') and which alternative to use to resume ('Use resume_mission to continue'). It also gives the prerequisite scope and role, leaving no ambiguity about eligibility.

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