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

Even though annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it recomputes next run, reactivates, restarts with a full pass for completed agents, and refuses if expiration has passed. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects and failure conditions.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds distinct information: main action, special-case behavior, and failure condition. No fluff or redundancy.

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 a single parameter, an output schema, and clear behavioral descriptions covering normal, special-case, and refusal scenarios, the description is complete for the tool's complexity. The inclusion of the expiry edge case and fresh-pass behavior leaves no major gaps.

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% for the single parameter agentId, and the schema already provides a description ('24-hex agent id (from list_agents)'). The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Resume') and resource ('scheduled agent'), explains the core behavior ('recomputes its next run and reactivates it'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like resume_session_task by specifying 'scheduled agent' rather than session task. The additional detail about completed work-list agents further clarifies the specific use case.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (for paused scheduled agents) and describes a special case (completed work-list agents). It also provides a precondition for use (expiry not passed) and a workaround ('extend it on the dashboard first'). However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like resume_session_task, though the 'scheduled agent' wording provides implicit differentiation.

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