neurover_cleanup_pause

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the timing semantics — the pause only takes effect after the current chunk finishes. It omits whether the pause is resumable, how long the paused state persists, and what the caller should observe afterwards.

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 short sentence with zero filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on underspecified rather than being deliberately terse.

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 state-mutating control tool with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the definition says too little: no indication of which jobId to supply, whether a paused job can be resumed, or how to confirm the pause took effect.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'jobId' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never says the id must be a cleanup job id (from cleanup_start or cleanup_scan) rather than a workflow or generation id, which is a real ambiguity given the many id-bearing sibling tools.

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 and resource ('Приостановить фоновую очистку') plus a scope qualifier ('после текущей порции') that subtly separates it from neurover_cleanup_cancel. It never names the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the pause-vs-cancel distinction.

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 'after the current portion' implies this is the graceful stop option, which hints at when to prefer it over cancellation, but no alternative tool is named and no preconditions (e.g. an active cleanup job id is required) are stated.

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