runtime_pause

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful return-value cue ('the new state'), which matters since there is no output schema, but it omits whether pausing persists across frames or affects input processing.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the return note earns its place given the absent output schema. Slightly terse given the multi-step runtime tool family, but no waste.

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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It neither overstates nor omits anything critical, but the toggle semantics and lack of sibling routing leave small gaps.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the conditional requirement on session_id. The description adds no semantic detail beyond the fields themselves, so the 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+resource pair ('freeze or unfreeze a running game's scene tree') with clear scope. It is distinguishable from runtime_stop (terminates) and runtime_step (advances frames), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly named debug_pause sibling.

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?

No indication of when to pause versus using runtime_stop, runtime_step, or debug_pause, and no mention of prerequisites or session requirements. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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