Stops a running conversation turn without deleting the session, so you can resume later with send_message and record a state such as paused or paused_usage.
会話の動いているターンを止める。会話そのものは残り、send_message で続きを頼める。markAs で管理上の状態を記録する（既定 paused＝手で止めた。利用枠で止めるときは paused_usage にすると、枠が戻ったときに wait_events が usageRecovered を返す）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markAs | No | paused | |
| threadId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only readOnlyHint=false available, the description carries meaningful behavioral context: the turn stops, the conversation persists, a management state is recorded, and paused_usage affects later wait_events behavior. It does not describe interruption timing or error behavior, but it adds substantial value beyond the annotation.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the stop action first, then clarifies persistence and continuation, then explains markAs. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the key behavioral outcomes and the non-obvious markAs option. It leaves threadId semantics and return/error behavior implicit, but the essential context for correct invocation is 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains markAs thoroughly, including the default and the special paused_usage semantics, but threadId receives no added meaning beyond its name.
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 precise verb and scope: it stops the currently running turn, not the conversation itself. It also explicitly distinguishes the outcome from deletion by saying the conversation remains and can be continued with send_message.
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?
It gives clear usage guidance for markAs, including the default paused state and the paused_usage case tied to quota recovery and wait_events. It also names send_message as the continuation path, though it does not compare against other session-management siblings such as update_session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.