pause_host_run

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. However, the description doesn't disclose consequences: does pausing end the run, is it reversible, does it affect committed data, are there prerequisites (e.g., run must be active/running)? The 'next portable stage boundary' suggests conditioned behavior but the timing semantics are unexplained.

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 sentence with no filler. It's appropriately concise, though the terseness sacrifices useful context. The sentence is structured well with the target verb first and the conditioning qualifier at the end.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage and minimal annotations, the description is substantially under-specified. The 'portable stage boundary' concept needs explanation for lifecycle understanding, and expected_revision's semantics need clarification. The output schema exists but the behavioral contract (what pausing does state-wise) is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it provides zero parameter context. 'expected_revision' is presumably a concurrency guard but its meaning and required value are unexplained. 'reason' and 'run_id' are self-explanatory by name, but expected_revision needs elaboration that the description fails to give.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pause') and resource ('host run') plus a scope qualifier ('at its next portable stage boundary'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like resume_host_run, request_run_cancellation, and commit_host_stage. However, 'portable stage boundary' is domain jargon that isn't elaborated, so an agent may not fully grasp what 'portable' means here.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. With siblings like commit_host_stage, start_host_run, and resume_host_run in context, an agent gets no direction on how pause_host_run relates to the run lifecycle state machine, when pausing is allowed, or whether it should be preferred over request_run_cancellation.

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