Pause workspace

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: that nothing is deleted, that the operation requires owner-level authorization, and that it is reversible via workspace_resume. Does not cover blast radius beyond services (e.g. volumes, domains) or timing, so not a full 5.

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?

One tight sentence plus two short qualifiers; the core action is front-loaded and every clause (no-delete, owner-only, undo) carries distinct information.

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?

A single-parameter mutation with no output schema; annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers scope, authorization, and reversal. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents workspaceId including the pointer to workspace_list. The description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('stop every service in every project of a workspace') plus the crucial scope qualifier 'without deleting anything'. It explicitly disambiguates from sibling project_pause by noting it is equivalent to project_pause applied to each project.

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?

Gives the triggering condition ('when the workspace owner wants to stop every service...'), the prerequisite ('Owner only'), and the escape hatch ('Undo with workspace_resume'). Alternatives at the project and service level are implicitly routed to via the project_pause comparison.

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