pause_employee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly flags a WRITE operation and states it starts a pause, but omits critical mutation details: required employee state, side effects, idempotency, error handling, and permissions.

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 definition is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the operation type (WRITE) and then states the action clearly. There is no wasted text, and every phrase contributes to understanding.

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-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core action but omits state preconditions (e.g., employee must be clocked in) and behavioral effects. It is minimally viable but not complete enough to prevent misuse.

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 100% for the single employeeId parameter, and the description adds no additional syntax or formatting details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb (starts a pause) and resource (current working session of an employee), clearly distinguishing it from unpause_employee and clock in/out. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings, so it falls short of 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 'current working session' implies the employee must already be clocked in before calling, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer correct usage from context.

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