pause_collaboration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'pause' and that it can be resumed, but does not disclose side effects, state changes, permission requirements, or what happens if the collaboration is not running or already paused. For a state-mutating tool, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is a single, two-sentence definition with zero wasted words. The core action is stated first, followed by a useful note about resumption. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema. The description adequately covers the core action and the reversibility via continue_collaboration. It does not mention error conditions (e.g., if the collaboration is not running) or prerequisite permissions, but for a basic pause action, it is close to sufficient.

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 covers the single parameter (collaboration_id) with 100% description coverage, so the agent already knows what it is. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 states a clear verb ('pause') and resource ('running collaboration'), which directly matches the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings like end_collaboration and continue_collaboration. It unambiguously tells an agent what this tool does.

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 provides a clear usage context: pause a running collaboration, and explicitly mentions that it can be resumed with continue_collaboration. This implies when to prefer pause over end (if resumption is desired), but it does not explicitly list alternatives or conditions to avoid using it. While not exhaustive, it offers clear guidance for the primary use case.

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