Pause Control Generation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the state machine (pausing then paused), that queued builds pause at once, that completed work is only in the staging copy, nothing is published or billed, nothing auto-resumes, there is no undo other than resume, it holds the model while paused, and pausing is idempotent.

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?

Front-loads the action, the mutating flag, and the primary use case, then layers consequences and the return shape in clearly separated blocks. Dense but every clause (billing, idempotency, staging copy, alternatives) carries distinct information; only the length keeps it from a 5.

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 with no annotations, the description covers triggers, state transitions, side-effect boundaries, idempotency, recovery path, sibling disambiguation, and the two possible return shapes (including the 409 not_running case). 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 coverage is 50%: model_id is documented in the schema, and the description's framing ('a model's background control generation') corroborates that target but adds no new semantics. server_version is undocumented in both places, and the description never compensates for it.

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 model's background control generation') plus the mutation nature in the first line. It is immediately distinguishable from resume_control_generation and discard_control_build, which are named later.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers ('user asks to stop a build — for example one started by mistake — or before deleting a model whose controls are still being built') and names the two alternatives (resume_control_generation, discard_control_build) with the condition that selects each.

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