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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: cards from past days are re-queued to the next free publishing days, and resuming incurs no cost. It still doesn't mention auth/permission needs or return format.

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, no waste, with the core action and its precondition front-loaded before the scheduling and cost details.

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, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the action, when it applies, its scheduling consequence, and its cost.

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 schema already documents site_id as coming from list_sites with a connection default. The description adds no parameter detail, 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 ("Resume") and resource ("automatic articles for the site"), with the precondition "after a pause" making it immediately distinguishable from the sibling pause_site. An agent can identify the operation 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?

The phrase "after a pause" gives clear context for when to call it (only relevant to a site that was paused), and the scheduling sentence clarifies the effect. It does not explicitly name pause_site or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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