Pause slot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: action tools are refused, an in-progress browser_wait stops immediately, an action already dispatched to Chrome completes, reading still works, and the effect propagates to agents in other Claude sessions. This is exactly the async/concurrency behavior an agent needs before calling.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information (trigger, scope of refusal, in-flight behavior, read access, cross-session effect, all flag). The usage constraint is front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers the mutation's blast radius, concurrency semantics, and cross-session scope thoroughly. It could state what the tool returns or how to confirm the slot is paused, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for one parameter ("all=true pauses every running slot"), but says nothing about slot, slots, or agent beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (pause a browser slot) and makes the inverse relation to the sibling slot_resume obvious. An agent can distinguish it from every browser_* action tool and from slot_resume without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition with a concrete example ("pause 3") and a strong when-not rule ("agents never call it on their own"). It does not name the complementary tool (slot_resume) as the alternative, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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