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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds two meaningful behavior details beyond that: resuming occurs at the next schedule point, and consecutive_failures is reset as a side effect. It does not discuss authorization requirements or error behavior for invalid states.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and preconditions, with the REST endpoint in parentheses as a terse aside. No wasted wording.

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 two-parameter state-transition tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, precondition, and the key side effect. It lacks detail on failure modes (e.g. resuming a job that isn't paused), which would round it out.

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 coverage is 100%, with job_id and management_token both documented in the schema including format hints and the Authorization bearer alternative. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies with the schema doing the heavy lifting.

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 plus the precondition state: 'Resume a paused or disabled job from its next schedule point'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pause_job, delete_job, and update_job without needing to name them.

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 clear guidance on when to use it (jobs in paused or disabled state) and what the effect is. It doesn't say what happens if the job is running or completed, nor does it explicitly route to an alternative tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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