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

Annotations only cover openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: pausing is reversible via resume_autopilot_run, it will not bypass the approval gate, and it cannot apply to completed or failed runs. It stops short of permissions, idempotency, or immediate-effect details, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the follow-up alternative, then the constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 single-parameter pause operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, reversibility, approval-gate behavior, and invalid-state exclusion. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as the numeric autopilot run ID from list_autopilot_runs. The description adds no additional syntax, formatting, or source detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Suspends') and resource ('autopilot run'), plus the condition ('still in flight'). It distinguishes this from resume_autopilot_run and from a terminal-state run, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?

It explicitly names the follow-up alternative ('resume later with resume_autopilot_run') and states the excluding condition ('A completed or failed run cannot be paused'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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