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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It does disclose that resuming involves rebuilding from an archive, which is useful, but it omits side effects, prerequisites beyond 'previously paused,' and any consequences for existing state. For a state-changing operation, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the verb and resource, includes only essential qualifiers, and no filler. It earns its place.

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?

With one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the core mechanics are present. However, for a mutation operation with no annotations, the lack of information about expected outcomes, errors, or disambiguation from rebuild_instance leaves the description only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100%: the 'id' parameter is already documented as the instance id with provenance. The description doesn't add parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Resume') with a clear resource ('previously paused instance') and adds the mechanism 'rebuilding it from its archive,' which distinguishes it from create_instance and rebuild_instance. The meaning is immediately clear.

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 'previously paused instance' establishes when to use this tool: after pause_instance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over create, delete, or rebuild.

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