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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it re-enables feed polling and workflow execution, and it discloses the AGENT_ACCOUNT_UNAVAILABLE failure condition and the recommended remediation. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and effect, the second explains a critical failure condition and workaround, and the third gives a direct pointer for satisfying the required parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter, the description covers what the tool does, what effect it has, what can go wrong, how to resolve that error, and where to obtain the required identifier. No output schema exists, but none is needed to invoke this operation correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the single parameter agentId is self-explanatory and the description compensates by telling the agent to use campaignstack_list_signal_agents to find agent IDs. For a one-parameter tool, this is sufficient semantic guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resume a paused signal agent', and clarifies the concrete effect ('re-enabling feed polling and workflow execution'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by targeting signal agents specifically, and even directs the agent to campaignstack_list_signal_agents for IDs, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies: resuming paused signal agents, with an explicit precondition that connection-watch and message agents cannot resume while their LinkedIn account is disconnected. It also names the error code and suggests reconnecting first, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling resume tools like campaignstack_resume_signal_watch, so usage guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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