Pause

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds a trait annotations cannot express: that the run's state is preserved and recoverable via matic_resume. It stops short of describing what happens to an in-progress task, so a 4 rather than a 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the recovery path parenthetically attached. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

This is a zero-parameter control tool with no output schema, so the description carries little burden; action, reversibility, and the resume follow-up are all stated. Minor gaps remain around whether the current task finishes before pausing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and no parameter information is missing.

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 pairs a specific verb (pause) with a specific resource (the current cleaning run), so the action is unambiguous. It also names the companion tool matic_resume, which separates it from the destructive alternatives in the sibling set (matic_stop). It does not explicitly contrast against matic_stop, which keeps it just 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?

It gives clear context for use by stating the pause is reversible and pointing to matic_resume for the follow-up action. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use matic_stop to end the run entirely), so the routing is helpful but not exhaustive.

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