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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: a run paused before approval returns to awaiting approval and resuming can never skip the gate, and a failed run resumes from its failure stage after the cause is fixed. Annotations only say openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description supplies the state-machine semantics.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two state cases. Every sentence adds a distinct fact with no filler.

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 state-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it correctly. Return behavior and idempotency are unstated, but nothing required for invocation is missing.

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 100% and the single `id` parameter is fully documented as the numeric run ID from list_autopilot_runs. The description adds no further parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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"), which implicitly distinguishes it from start_autopilot_run, pause_autopilot_run, and kill_autopilot_run. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 real when-to-use context by describing the two resumable states (paused-before-approval and failed) and what resuming does in each. No explicit exclusions or named alternative tools, but the state conditions are clear.

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