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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, non-destructive), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: cross-account scope, the real-world side effect of replying to people again, and the preconditions/exclusions that would make the call a no-op or invalid. It stops short of describing what happens on failure or how the resumed state is confirmed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence carries distinct information (effect, scope, precondition, exclusion). Slightly colloquial phrasing ('replying to real people again') makes the last clause feel oblique, but there is no filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations already declaring idempotency and non-destructiveness, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, side effect, precondition, and the case where the call will not take effect.

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 description coverage is 100% for the sole parameter, and the description adds nothing about automation_id beyond what the schema already states (the value comes from sprkly_list_automations). The implicit point that no account parameter is needed because resume applies to all accounts is mild added meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb plus resource — turn a paused automation back on — that an agent can distinguish from the sibling sprkly_pause_automation without opening either schema. It also states the operational scope ('on every account it runs on'), which clarifies what 'resume' actually affects.

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?

Gives a precondition ('A draft has to be finished in sprkly first') and an explicit exclusion ('An automation that hit its "stop after this many people" limit stays off'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, name the sibling tool it pairs with or the inverse operation (sprkly_pause_automation), so routing is implied rather than stated.

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