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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a potential refusal condition (empty balance) and implies the task resumes on schedule. It doesn't mention required auth, idempotency, or what happens if the task is already running.

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 sentences, both informative. The first states the action; the second adds a crucial precondition. No fluff, though 'buy deliveries first' is informal and slightly imprecise for an agent context.

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 tool with no output schema, this is close to adequate. The key missing context is when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for one-off completed tasks) and whether resume is only valid after pause_task. The balance precondition helps but doesn't fully round out the operational picture.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: id is described as 'Task id (UUID), as returned by create_task or list_tasks.' The description adds no parameter detail beyond referencing the id implicitly. Baseline 3 applies because schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states a clear action ('Start firing again on the schedule') and the resource (a paused task). It is distinguishable from siblings like pause_task and run_task_now. However, the phrase 'firing again' is slightly informal and relies on the title for full clarity.

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 makes it clear this is for resuming a paused task and warns about balance requirements. It does not explicitly explain when to prefer resume_task over restore_task or run_task_now, though the general scheduling context is implied.

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