pause_taskPause work on a task and save a structured checkpoint (scratchpad, plan, next steps) so another coworker can resume cleanly. Releases the lease and returns the task to the queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Short handoff note for whoever resumes. | |
| task_id | Yes | Task id, or a pasted Tango task URL. | |
| checkpoint | Yes | Free-form JSON object holding your working state: e.g. { scratchpad, plan, next_steps, context }. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it releases the lease, returns the task to the queue, and preserves a checkpoint for clean resumption. No contradiction with the annotations was found.
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 two concise sentences, front-loads the primary action, and includes the most important side effects without filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly: purpose, checkpoint contents, lease release, and queue return are all stated, while parameter details live in the schema. It does not describe the return value or explicitly point to resume_task as the follow-up, but those are not required 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?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage: task_id, checkpoint, and note. The description reinforces that the checkpoint is a structured working state, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Pause work on a task and save a structured checkpoint.' It also clarifies the outcome—releasing the lease and returning the task to the queue—which distinguishes pause_task from siblings like resume_task, complete_task, and claim_task.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: pausing work so another coworker can resume cleanly, with lease release and queue return. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5 but the intended use is still clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.
At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.
The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.