pause

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Requires confirm: true', but the schema already documents that confirm must be true after operator agreement, so this adds no new information. The description does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or any state changes beyond the obvious pause action.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action and stating the key requirement. There is no filler or redundant detail, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one fully described parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what the action is and that confirmation is required. It does not mention edge cases like behavior when no print is running, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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%, and the property description already explains that confirm must be true after operator agreement. The tool description merely restates this requirement without adding any deeper meaning, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 action (pause) and resource (the running print), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'stop' or 'resume', so it doesn't fully meet the 'distinguishes from siblings' bar, but the verb is specific enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that pause is for temporary halts or that stop is for permanent cancellation, nor any conditions under which pause should be preferred. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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