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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses behavior for sensitive prompts (no echo), info asks (exact field_values), and payment asks (approval via Link app, payment_approved semantics, task failure on false). Does not cover rate limits or auth, but core behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

Description is structured with paragraphs for different scenarios, front-loading the main action. It is informative but slightly verbose; each sentence adds value, but could be more concise by combining related instructions. Overall well-organized.

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?

Given 7 parameters and existing output schema, the description covers critical scenarios (sensitive, info, payment) thoroughly. It explains complex payment flow and sensitive data handling. However, it omits details on general reply parameters (field, value, message) and return format, leaving some gaps. Still, comprehensive for the tool's core use.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains sensitive, field_values, and payment_approved parameters in context. However, parameters 'field', 'value', and 'message' are not described; their purpose (likely for general replies) is unclear. Description adds significant value for three key parameters but leaves others ambiguous.

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 tool resumes a ticket waiting on the user. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., cancel, create_job) by specifying the action and conditions. The verb 'Resume' and context of sensitive/info/payment asks make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use the tool: to resume a ticket. Provides conditional guidance for sensitive prompts (pass sensitive=true, don't echo value), info asks (pass field_values matching requested fields), and payment asks (tell user to approve in Link app). Implicitly excludes usage for non-resume actions, offering clear context.

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