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

Annotations only declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the approval gate is never bypassed and a failed run restarts at the failed stage rather than from scratch. It does not state what happens when called on a running/completed run, nor whether any external side effects are re-triggered on resume.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two state-specific behaviors. No redundant restatement of the title or 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 single-parameter resume mutation with no output schema, the description covers the meaningful branches (paused vs failed) and the key invariant (approval gate). The only gaps are behavior on ineligible run states and what is returned.

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% and the single `id` parameter is already documented in the schema, including its provenance (from list_autopilot_runs). The description adds no further meaning about the ID, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resumes a paused autopilot run') and immediately clarifies the two states it handles (paused-before-approval and failed). The sentence about never skipping the approval gate implicitly separates it from approve_autopilot_run and start_autopilot_run, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 clear preconditions for use: the run must be paused, or failed with its cause (e.g. insufficient credits) already fixed. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead when those conditions fail, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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