pause_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently states that the tool updates pause/resume state, which is the core side effect an agent needs to know. It does not discuss failure behavior or idempotency, but for a simple state-update tool this disclosure is mostly adequate.

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 focused sentences front-load the primary purpose, then provide usage context, alternatives, and required inputs. There is no filler or 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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required. The description covers purpose, when to use, alternatives, and parameter roles for a simple two-parameter tool, leaving little critical information missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by describing next_step as a 'concrete next action to resume' and requiring an exact thread_id, but it doesn't define thread_id beyond its name or address error cases. It partially compensates but leaves some semantic detail to inference.

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 and resource ('pause thread') and clearly states it saves a concrete next action. It also distinguishes itself from mark_done and dismiss_thread, which are named explicitly as alternatives. This makes the tool's unique role 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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('Use when the thread will continue later') and names the alternatives for completed vs abandoned work. It also states the precondition 'Requires the exact thread_id and next_step'. This fully guides selection and invocation.

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