Pause asynchronous mission

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

The description adds behavioral information beyond annotations: it states the pause is a request, takes effect after the current iteration, and that the job can be resumed. This is valuable because annotations only indicate it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation; the timing and resumability are not in the structured data.

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 description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose (request a pause) and followed by two key behavioral details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (what happens after pause, resumability). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., job must be running) or what the response might be, but these are not critical for a tool of this simplicity. Overall it is adequate.

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?

The only parameter, job_id, is already fully described in the input schema ('Job id.'), and the description adds no additional meaning or context. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: requesting a pause for a job, with the specific behavior that it stops after the current iteration and remains resumable. This distinguishes it from mission_cancel (permanent stop) and mission_resume (restart), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for temporarily halting a running job and notes the job can be resumed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for choosing this over mission_cancel or mission_resume. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, only an implied scenario.

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