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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key state change: the workflow will resume firing on its trigger, and the word 'again' suggests it will not fire immediately. However, it omits edge behavior such as calling it on a workflow that is not paused, idempotency, and any permission requirements.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the action, target, and outcome are all stated up front. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter state-transition tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description plus the schema is nearly complete. It lacks only an explicit statement about error cases or prerequisites beyond 'paused,' but the core call is fully specified.

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 single parameter id is fully described in the schema as 'Workflow UUID,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable under the baseline because the schema already carries the meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Resume a paused workflow') and states the resulting behavior ('starts firing on its trigger again'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling workflows_pause and workflows_run_now.

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 'paused workflow' supplies clear context for when to call it, and the trigger language implies it is the counterpart to workflows_pause. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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