pipeline_pause

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by stating the pending stage is preserved for resume, i.e. the pause is reversible. However, it omits what happens to in-flight work or a double-pause, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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, front-loaded with the action and its conditions, and the preservation guarantee placed second. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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?

A non-destructive mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation needs more than two sentences. The reversibility guarantee is useful, but idempotency behavior, failure modes, and the semantics of reason are left uncovered for an agent to guess.

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 0% and the description explains neither parameter. run_id is self-evident, but reason (a free-text field with a 200k maxLength) gets no guidance on expected content or granularity, even though the stated pause conditions hint at what belongs there.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Pause a running stage") that an agent can place immediately against siblings like pipeline_resume and pipeline_status. Minor ambiguity remains between pausing a stage versus the whole run, since the sibling family is named pipeline_*, and no sibling is named explicitly.

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 concrete triggering conditions: "for a real user decision or unavailable fresh workers," which tells the agent when pausing is the right move. It also implies the complement (resume) but states no exclusions, such as when not to pause or what to do instead for non-stage failures.

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