rollout_pause

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

The description includes a risk label '[risk=medium]' and '[WRITE]' indicating mutation, and explains dry_run behavior. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose side effects (e.g., impact on traffic, idempotency) or what happens if the rollout is not in progress. It provides baseline transparency but could be more detailed.

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 concise, using a clear structure with a header line and an 'Args:' list. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and risk indicator. Slightly more space could be saved, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and a medium-risk write operation, the description provides necessary parameter coverage and a dry_run hint but lacks post-execution context (e.g., how to verify pausing, what the tool returns). It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool that modifies state.

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 0%, so the description carries the full load. It explains all four parameters (name, namespace, dry_run, target) with practical details like namespace default behavior and dry_run purpose. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states the tool pauses a deployment's rollout, uses a specific verb-resource combination, and distinguishes from the sibling rollout_resume by naming it as the inverse. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 description mentions the dry_run parameter for previewing, which implies a safe first use, but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives like rollout_status or when to avoid it (e.g., if rollout is already paused). No explicit context for choosing among siblings.

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