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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it requires monitor scope and current authority, and critically it will NOT expand spending ceilings or grant rights. It stops short of describing the return value, which the absent output schema leaves unaddressed.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the action and its budget/expiry guardrails before the auth and limit caveats. Zero wasted words.

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 no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the authorization requirement, the non-expansion guarantee, and the expiry constraint well. The main remaining gap is the return/result behavior after a successful resume, which an agent might reasonably want to know.

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%, so both id and delegation_id are already fully documented with descriptions. The description adds only that delegation_id is optional and 'replacing' the existing delegation, which the schema's 'Optional replacement delegation' already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 precise verb+resource ('Resume an owned monitor') plus scope constraints ('within its existing expiry and total budget'). An agent can immediately distinguish it from pause_monitor and get_monitor without opening a schema.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions ('Requires monitor scope and current authority') and an exclusion ('expired monitors cannot resume'). It does not explicitly name pause_monitor as the inverse operation, so it falls just short of the top score.

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