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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral burden — and it does, disclosing that the operation resumes from the stopping point and that already transferred posts are not re-transferred. That idempotency guarantee is genuinely useful context for a mutating tool, though it says nothing about failure modes or what a return indicates.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the resumption semantics. There is no padding or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive-by-annotation mutation with no output schema, the description covers both what it does and its most important side-effect guarantee. It falls short only on state preconditions and outcome reporting, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage — including the pointer to routes.list as the source of the ID — the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about routeId beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'продолжает перенос истории по маршруту' (resumes the history transfer along a route). The clause 'после паузы' places it clearly relative to import_pause and import_start, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'после паузы' implies the precondition for calling it, but the description never states alternatives or exclusions — for example whether to use import_start instead when nothing has been paused, or what happens if no import exists. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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