pause_host_run

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail—pause is deferred to the next portable stage boundary—which is not captured by annotations (all false). However, it does not disclose whether the pause is resumable, what state the run enters, or any side effects, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutating operation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately identifies the verb and object, and the 'portable stage boundary' qualifier adds essential nuance without bloat.

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 presence of many sibling lifecycle tools and a state-changing operation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the concept of 'portable stage boundary,' the run state after pausing, or how this differs from cancellation/finalization. The output schema may cover return values, but the context for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool is incomplete.

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 provides no explanation for any of the three parameters. 'expected_revision' (likely optimistic concurrency) and 'reason' (audit trail) are completely undocumented, so the agent has no semantic grounding beyond their names.

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 the action ('Pause') and the target ('a host run'), and adds a specific timing detail ('at its next portable stage boundary'). This distinguishes it from other lifecycle tools in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like request_run_cancellation or finalize_host_run. The phrase 'at its next portable stage boundary' implies a safe point, but there is no explicit mention of use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this should be chosen.

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