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

Annotations already give the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world). The description adds value beyond them: the plan gating requirement and the fact that it restarts a server-driven loop, which is consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, gating, parameter hint), with the core action front-loaded. Tight and largely waste-free.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers the action, the gating condition, and the key parameter source, leaving little an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three params (baseline 3). The description adds meaningful guidance for n_channels by telling the agent where to obtain the value ('start_assignment reports it'), which the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resume a paused protocol session') and the core effect (restarts the server-driven device loop). It is clearly the inverse of protocol.pause, though it never names the sibling 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?

Implies the trigger condition (a paused session) and adds real constraints: live-hardware resume needs a Pro plan while simulated sessions are free. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but context is clear.

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