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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden and it largely does: it discloses exactly which fields change (active=true, next_run_at cleared) and that execution is deferred to the next cron tick rather than immediate. It omits auth requirements, idempotency/error behavior on a non-paused stream, and the response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the restriction last. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, when it takes effect, and a key eligibility restriction. Only the return value and failure modes are unstated, which are minor for this complexity.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Stream ID from list_streams'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about stream_id beyond that, which is the expected baseline given 100% coverage.

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 ('Resume a paused stream') and then explains the mechanism: sets active=true, clears next_run_at to queue on the next cron tick. That mechanism implicitly separates it from run_stream_now (immediate run) and pause_stream (the inverse), so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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?

Clear precondition (the stream must be paused) and an explicit exclusion: own_profile streams are billing-managed and cannot be resumed here. It stops short of naming the alternative route for those streams, which keeps it off a 5.

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