wafle_agents_pause

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description carries the burden of disclosing effects. It explicitly states that triggers stop firing and existing runs remain unaffected, which are key behavioral traits. It also implies the agent must be active, hinting at constraints. It lacks details on idempotency or error handling, but covers the core behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Pause an active agent'), followed by a precise behavioral note. Every word adds value, with no repetition of schema details.

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 2-parameter action with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its side effects. It could mention return value or repeated-pause behavior, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema.

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%, with both 'slug' and 'agent_slug' fully described including examples and format rules. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable since the schema already provides thorough semantics.

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+resource ('Pause an active agent') and adds behavioral scope ('Triggers stop firing; existing runs unaffected'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wafle_agents_activate or wafle_agents_run, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: pausing an active agent, with the added nuance that existing runs are unaffected. This implies the tool is not for stopping in-progress executions, guiding appropriate selection versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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