pause_migration

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which do not describe the nuanced behavior. The description adds the key behavioral detail that the current job finishes while new jobs are not started, which is valuable beyond the annotations. However, it does not discuss reversibility or error conditions, but that is partially covered by the output schema.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The action is stated first, followed by the behavioral nuance and the alternative tool, all in a clear and front-loaded structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the nuance about jobs, and the path to resume. It could mention preconditions (e.g., migration must be running), but that is implied by 'running migration'. Overall, it is complete enough 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', which is already described as 'Migration ID'. The description does not add any additional semantic detail about the parameter, so it aligns with the baseline of 3 for high 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?

States the specific action 'Pause a running migration' with a clear verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by noting that the current job finishes while new jobs are prevented, and explicitly names resume_migration as the counterpart. This unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose.

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?

Provides clear guidance by stating the effect on in-progress and future jobs, and explicitly directs the user to resume_migration to continue later. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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