pause_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the core side effect — the task is freed and becomes available to a teammate — but says nothing about whether progress is preserved, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to anyone currently holding the task.

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 with no padding, and the action outcome is placed before the note guidance. The opening question is slightly cryptic but not wasteful in length.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage mean the description has to do the heavy lifting, yet it omits consequences (progress retention, reversibility), permissions, and sibling differentiation. For a required-parameter mutation tool in a crowded task-management toolset, that leaves real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does give real semantic content for 'note' by naming the expected shape (done, next, branch), which the schema's bare string+maxLength does not. It adds nothing for 'task_id', and gives no format guidance for the note beyond the three words.

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 conveys the outcome ('free the task for a teammate') and the note's intended content, so the general intent is recoverable. But the framing is a rhetorical question ('Out of usage or stopping?') rather than a specific verb+resource statement, and it never clarifies how pausing differs from complete_task or publish_handoff among the siblings.

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?

It hints at a trigger condition ('Out of usage or stopping?'), which implies when to reach for this tool. However, no alternative is named and no exclusion is given, so the agent must infer whether pausing beats completing or handing off.

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