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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable side-effect detail: it saves a structured checkpoint, releases the lease, and returns the task to the queue. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or whether the same worker can resume, but given annotations already carry the safety profile, this is a strong addition.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scenario, followed by the action, effect, and a reference link. Every sentence contributes and nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers when to use it, what it does, and the state side effects. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing relative to siblings like resume_task or handoff_task, but otherwise it is complete for a pause tool.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description still adds meaning by giving example checkpoint contents ('scratchpad, plan, next steps') and explaining the resume purpose behind the handoff note, going slightly beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 and resource: 'Pause work on a task and save a structured checkpoint.' It clearly describes the effect (releases the lease, returns the task to the queue), which distinguishes it from completion or handoff. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like resume_task or handoff_task, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 first sentence gives a clear usage context: 'For stopping mid-flight with work half-done.' This tells the agent when to reach for this tool. But it provides no when-not guidance and does not mention alternatives such as handoff_task or check_in, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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