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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: this tool itself does not restart the stream, and the subsequent set_live_activity_stream call consumes push-to-start budget, which is a cost/limit the agent should know about.

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, zero waste, with the scope qualifier and the downstream consequence each getting exactly one sentence. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the state precondition and the follow-up cost, but does not say what happens if the stream is not paused (an error/validation case) or whether any permissions are required.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and that schema text already explains key stability and the push-to-start budget rationale. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (resume) and resource (Live Activity stream), qualified by 'genuinely paused managed' to define the exact state being acted on. This cleanly separates it from pause_live_activity_stream, end_live_activity_stream, and set_live_activity_stream in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'genuinely paused' implies the precondition for calling it, and the description explains the follow-up action (the next set_live_activity_stream call restarts the stream). It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or stating what to do if the stream is not paused.

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