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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that the in-flight model call finishes, how mid-tool-loop vs between-hop pauses differ (checkpoint continued in place vs next hop parked before starting), required permission level, and which run states produce errors. This is substantially more than the name implies.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the action, the boundary at which it takes effect, and the resumability contrast, before moving to mechanics and preconditions. No sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers effect timing, state transitions, permission requirements, and error conditions — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for the single runId parameter, so the schema already documents it ('The run id'). The description adds no format, syntax, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('pause') and resource ('a run') and immediately scopes it to the next step/hop boundary, distinguishing it from both cancel_run (terminal) and resume_run (the resumption path). An agent can differentiate it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives and the condition that selects them: use resume_run to continue, and pause is preferred over cancel_run because cancel is terminal. It also states the precondition (editor access on the run's graph) and the failure cases (already-parked or terminal runs error), so when-not-to-use is covered.

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