batch_pause

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that in-flight tasks still finish and bill, that a paused run still counts as an active job, that the operation is idempotent, and that an already-ended run returns its final status with already_ended:true. These are non-obvious behavioral traits the structured fields do not convey.

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 action and its scope constraint are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by cost guidance, state semantics, and idempotency. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, billing implication, job-state implication, idempotency, and the already-ended return case. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret 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% and the single job_id parameter is already documented as coming from batch_create or batch_list, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra parameter syntax or format detail; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (pause) and resource (a Batch job's current run), and immediately scopes the effect: no new tasks picked up. It distinguishes itself from batch_resume (the inverse) and batch_cancel (hard stop) without either schema being opened.

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?

Explicitly names when to use alternatives: batch_resume to restart, batch_cancel 'for a hard cost stop.' It also clarifies the soft-stop semantics (in-flight tasks still finish and bill), so an agent can choose between pause and cancel on cost grounds.

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