voltage_pause

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the mutation nature is disclosed. The description adds the specific behavior that held input is retained, which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful context about the pause/resume semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Pause or resume a run') and the clarifying detail about held input follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 existence of an output schema and simple optional parameters, the description is far from complete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and any mention of prerequisites or side effects beyond the held-input note. The agent would need to guess how to set 'resume' or when to pass 'run_id'.

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% — neither 'resume' nor 'run_id' is explained in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters at all, so the agent has no idea that 'resume' likely indicates whether to resume or pause, or how 'run_id' selects the run. With two parameters and zero coverage, the description must compensate but fails completely.

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 states a clear action (pause or resume), a specific resource (a run), and adds a key nuance (held input is not released). It distinguishes implicitly from voltage_stop but does not name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like voltage_stop or voltage_run. The note about held input hints at a use case but does not state conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when pause is appropriate.

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