pause_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and handles it well: it discloses that in_progress stories are interrupted, checkpointed, and left resumable, and that no background usage is burned. It stops short of describing already-paused behavior or persistence details, but the key side effects are covered.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the action and scope, then cover side effects and reversal. No filler, restatement, or redundant schema 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 tool with one required string parameter and an output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly: what is stopped, what is preserved, what happens to in-progress work, and how to undo it.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single plan_name parameter, and the description never mentions the parameter by name or its format. However, phrases like 'this one plan' and 'paused plan' make the target of the operation clear enough to compensate at a basic level.

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 specific verb and resource: pause a single plan so advance_pipeline/advance_all_plans no longer dispatch, review, or merge it. It clearly differentiates the tool from global pipeline operations and from resume_plan.

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 explicitly names the sibling tools this operation blocks and clarifies that other plans remain unaffected, which defines the precise use case. It also directs the agent to resume_plan as the paired reversal operation.

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