Pause slot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses what is blocked (all action tools), what is interrupted (browser_wait in progress), what survives (an action already sent to Chrome finishes; reading still works), the cross-session reach, and the all=true scope. This is far more than a restatement of the name.

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 most important constraint (only call on explicit user request) is front-loaded, and nearly every sentence is terse and load-bearing. A couple of clauses, such as the note about other Claude sessions, are useful but slightly tangential for a pause tool.

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 mutation-style control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect scope, timing, and cross-session behavior well. It does not state what the call returns or confirm whether an ack is produced, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, making a baseline of 3 correct. The description adds the meaning of all=true ('pauses every running slot') beyond the schema's terse 'All running slots', but gives no guidance on choosing between slot, slots, and all.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (pause a browser slot) and immediately distinguishes it from its counterpart siblings by stating it is only for user-requested pauses, with slot_resume implied as the inverse. It also scopes the effect precisely ('All action tools on the slot are refused', 'all=true pauses every running slot'), so an agent can separate it from other slot tools 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use only when the user says to pause, e.g. "pause 3"') and explicit when-not ('agents never call it on their own') are both stated, which is exactly the exclusion guidance an autonomous agent needs. Nothing is left to inference.

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