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

Annotations cover only the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the rest. It adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait not present in annotations — idempotency — which prevents redundant-call concerns. It does not disclose required permissions or the effect on sync state beyond resumption.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its precondition front-loaded before the idempotency caveat. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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 essentials are covered, but it omits what resumption actually does to the sync (continue from pause point vs. restart), whether an invalid or completed syncId errors, and any permission requirement. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions syncId, its format, or where to find one. Because the single parameter's name and uuid format make its intent largely self-evident, this lands at the baseline rather than below it, but the description adds zero parameter meaning.

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 ('Resume') plus resource ('sync') and adds the precondition that distinguishes it from its siblings: the sync must be 'previously paused', separating it from pause_sync, trigger_sync, and create_sync.

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 trigger condition is explicit (use after a sync has been paused), and the idempotency clause tells the agent what happens if it calls the tool on a non-paused sync. It stops short of naming the complementary alternative (pause_sync) or stating error behavior for unknown/invalid syncIds.

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