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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing that resuming IS the price confirmation, that the confirmed amount travels as max_credits, that a price increase results in nothing being charged and another stop with the new price, and that only the waiting nodes are retried while completed work is not repeated. These are exactly the side effects an agent must know before acting.

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?

Front-loaded with the 'Use when' clause and organized around the two stop scenarios, which is good structure. It is on the long side for a one-parameter tool and repeats the status wording, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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 mutation with no output schema and no nested objects, it covers prerequisites, both stop causes, side effects and the retry scope, which is close to complete. Gaps are the unresolved max_credits reference and no guidance on what to do if the run is not actually in a waiting state.

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 lauf_id is documented as coming from lab_flow_starten, so the baseline is 3. However, the description introduces 'max_credits' as something the confirmed amount 'travels as' while the input schema has only lauf_id and additionalProperties=false — an agent could plausibly try to pass a parameter that the schema will reject.

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 (resume) and resource (Flow/Pipeline run) and pins the exact precondition that separates it from lab_flow_starten/lab_flow_status: a run stopped with status 'wartet'. The two named stop reasons ('Wartet auf Freigabe' vs 'Wartet auf Preisbestätigung') let an agent identify the correct call without opening any sibling 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when a flow run is waiting for approval or a price confirmation and the person gives the go-ahead'), and gives prerequisites plus a named alternative path: approve the image first via lab_review_asset with verdict accepted, then resume. It also states the when-not / ask-first condition for price confirmation, so routing is unambiguous.

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