mission_pause

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses one concrete effect: 'No new workers are launched while paused.' However, it does not clarify whether currently running workers are stopped, whether the pause is reversible, or what state changes occur beyond the pause flag.

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 provide the core action and a key behavioral consequence without any filler. The description is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a relatively simple pause operation, the description covers the main purpose and the most important behavioral nuance. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. It is slightly incomplete in that it leaves the repo parameter unexplained and does not mention how pause relates to resume, but the essentials for invocation are present.

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 does not explain any parameter. The mission_id parameter is inferable from the tool's purpose, and reason is partially self-explanatory, but repo remains ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Pause an active mission.' It also adds a meaningful behavioral qualifier about worker launches. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like mission_resume or mission_cancel, but the pause action is distinct enough that an agent can likely select it correctly.

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 implies usage: pause an active mission when you want to stop new workers from launching. It gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as mission_cancel or mission_resume, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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