Pause continuous evaluation for a specific objective by ID, optionally recording a reason on the decision record. Use when monitoring or execution must stop temporarily.
Pause continuous evaluation for an objective
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Optional note stored on the decision record | |
| objectiveId | Yes | Objective ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether pausing is reversible, what happens to in-flight evaluations, whether the decision is recorded (the 'reason' param hints at a decision record), or what authorization is required for this mutation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than optimally concise.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits reversibility, side effects, and the fact that a decision record is created, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.
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%, so both parameters (objectiveId, reason) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies.
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 (continuous evaluation for an objective), which clearly separates it from aureon_resume_objective by antonym. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling or clarify what 'continuous evaluation' encompasses, but the core action is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information. The pairing with aureon_resume_objective is inferable only from the tool name, not stated in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.