pause_pipeline

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

The annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds genuine value beyond them by revealing that the call is asynchronous ('request' + poll to observe completion), which an agent must know to avoid treating the return as final. It does not explain the destructive impact on in-flight batches or any permission requirements, so it remains partial.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the essential follow-up step. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Down-weighted dimension: with an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The remaining gap is behavioral (destructive impact, permission/async semantics depth) which overlaps the transparency score.

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% and the single required parameter 'name' is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no hint about whether 'name' is the pipeline name, an ID, or a fully qualified identifier, nor any link between it and the 'running pipeline' being paused.

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?

Clear specific verb + resource ('pause of a running pipeline') and it implicitly pairs against the sibling resume_pipeline. It stops short of naming that sibling or scoping which pipelines qualify, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Request pause of a running pipeline' implies the precondition that the pipeline must be running, and 'Poll status to observe completion' points at the get_pipeline_status sibling. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., what to do for a paused/stopped pipeline) and the routing advice is indirect.

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