architect_runs_control

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds only the 'no approval authority' constraint and says nothing about the effects of cancel versus retry, whether cancellation is reversible, or what permissions are required for these mutations.

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 that lists the actions first and appends the authority constraint, with no wasted preamble. It is concise, though extremely terse for a multi-action mutation tool.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 25% parameter description coverage, the description is too sparse. It should clarify action-specific effects, required run state, and the roles of run_id versus task_id.

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 only 25%, with just the workspace parameter documented in the schema. The description repeats the action verbs already represented by the enum but does not explain run_id or the optional task_id, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 names the specific control actions (pause, resume, cancel, retry) and the resource domain (scheduling), so the agent can tell this is a run-control tool rather than a starter or observer. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as architect_runs_start or architect_runs_observe, which keeps it below a 5.

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 'no approval authority' gives one useful exclusion, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus architect_runs_start, architect_runs_observe, or the task tools. Usage is implied by the action list rather than explicitly guided.

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