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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It transparently states that the test will resume on its interval, reset state to UP, and return the updated API test. This covers the key behavioral outcomes, though it doesn't address edge cases like already-enabled tests or required permissions.

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 two sentences, with the action and purpose in the first sentence and details in the second. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the action, behavioral effect, and return value. It lacks explicit mention of what happens if the test is not paused, but this is a minor edge case.

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 apiTestId is fully described in the schema as 'Id of the API test to enable.' The description adds no further detail about the parameter (e.g., format, source). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action (enable/resume scheduling) and the target resource (a paused API test), and explains the effect (starts running, state resets to UP). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like disable_api_test and update_api_test.

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 description implies usage by specifying 'a paused API test', indicating the prerequisite state. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., disable_api_test) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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