pause_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. It discloses the state transition (active to paused) and idempotency, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., impact on running tasks, notifications, or whether the pipeline can be resumed). Lack of details on resource locking or permissions is a gap.

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 two short sentences, each providing essential information: the action and idempotency. No redundant words. Front-loading the main purpose achieves high efficiency.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose and idempotency. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., pipeline must exist and be active), which are important for correct usage. The presence of resume_pipeline among siblings implies reversibility, but this is not stated.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (pipeline_id) described as '目标 Pipeline ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, hence baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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), the resource (Pipeline), and the state transition (active to paused). The mention of idempotency for already paused pipelines adds specificity. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like resume_pipeline.

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 implies the tool should be used for active pipelines (active → paused) and notes idempotency for already paused ones. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., pipeline must be active) or when not to use it (e.g., if pipeline is not found or is already paused in an unexpected state). No guidance on alternatives is provided.

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