pause_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states that all calls with the agent's keys will fail auth from the next request until resume_agent, and that only active agents can be paused. It also discloses the developer key requirement. It stops short of describing idempotency or return values, but the core behavioral impact is well covered.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose, then add behavioral and prerequisite information. No wasted words, and the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, prerequisites, and auth. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with sibling names like resume_agent and close_agent providing contrast.

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 100% and the single parameter agent_id is described as 'Numeric agent id.' The description itself adds no additional detail about the parameter beyond referencing 'the agent's keys,' which is context rather than parameter semantics. With high schema coverage, baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Pause (suspend) one agent — the per-agent kill-switch.' This clearly identifies the operation and its scope, and the contrast with 'resume_agent' distinguishes it from the obvious sibling. The mention of 'per-agent kill-switch' adds precise functional identity.

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 gives clear usage context: it is used to suspend a single agent, only works on active agents, and requires a developer key. It also states the effect lasts 'until resume_agent,' implying the recovery path. However, it does not explicitly list 'when not to use' or alternative tools beyond the implicit resume_agent.

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