Pause the running process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the trigger semantics (next JS execution) and that the result reports the stop location, but says nothing about timeout/error behavior, what happens if the process is already paused or not running, or any auth/permission requirements.

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 zero filler, front-loaded on the action and the trigger point, with the outcome appended. Nothing to trim.

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 simple one-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the result ('report where it stopped'). It is nearly complete; only the precondition (a running process) and timeout outcome are unstated, though the timeout behavior is partly implied by the schema's wait_ms description.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents wait_ms and its default/max plus the 'running' return on timeout. The description adds nothing about it, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('interrupt') plus the resource and the exact trigger point ('at the next JS execution'), and adds a result ('report where it stopped'). It is clear enough to distinguish from stepping tools, but it never names or contrasts the near-identical sibling wait_for_pause, so the differentiation is only partial.

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 phrase 'at the next JS execution' implies the situation in which this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no stated precondition (process must be running), and no routing to alternatives such as continue, step_over, or wait_for_pause.

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