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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral value beyond those: pending items are re-planned from now and constrained by the window and remaining quota, which tells the agent the resume is quota-bounded and time-scoped. It omits error conditions (e.g., non-paused job) and auth needs.

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, action front-loaded in the first clause. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 the description covers the key scheduling semantics of a resume. It's nearly complete, only missing failure modes and confirmation that the job must currently be paused.

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%: job_id and idempotency_key are both fully documented in the schema, including the idempotency semantics and 24-hour key expiry. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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 ('Resume a paused job'), which clearly reads as the inverse of the sibling pause_job and is distinguishable from cancel_job. It's unambiguous, though it never names the alternatives to sharpen the distinction.

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 'a paused job' implies the precondition for use, which is adequate context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to resume vs. cancel or re-create a job, and no note on what happens if the job isn't paused.

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