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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: risk-halt gating, paid/owner-only access, and the fact that it does not place live orders or run model inference.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. The phrase "keyless: subscription_required with a subscribe link" is slightly cryptic, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, gating, access, and key constraints. However, it does not describe what a successful resume changes or returns, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 100%, so book_id and expected_version are already fully documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb and resource: "Resume paper entries." It is distinguishable from siblings like research_paper_pause and research_paper_start by the word "resume," though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It gives a clear precondition and exclusion with "unless risk halted," plus access constraints: paid, owner-only, no live orders or model inference. It does not explicitly route the agent to pause/start or explain what to do when halted, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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