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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It conveys a state change from paused to active, but does not disclose what resuming actually triggers, whether there are idempotency concerns, what happens if the channel is not paused, or any permissions/error conditions.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to conveying the core action and resource.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this one-liner is insufficient. An agent invoking this tool lacks critical context about prerequisites, effects, error behavior, and return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely implies that 'id' refers to a campaign and 'channel' is one of the enum values; it does not explicitly define the id's role (e.g., campaign ID) or what each channel value means in context.

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 states a specific action ('Resume') and resource ('a paused channel on a campaign'), making the tool's core function clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like pause_channel and pause_campaign through the 'resume' + 'channel' combination, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 channel' implies the tool should be used when a channel is currently paused, providing minimal usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, what preconditions exist, or how it relates to sibling tools like pause_channel or launch_campaign.

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