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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a genuine authorization constraint that the schema cannot express. However, it says nothing about what resuming does to strategy state, whether it is idempotent, or what errors arise if the strategy is not paused or is not owned by the key.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, then the permission constraint. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant caveat is not buried.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only behavioural source; it covers the ownership/authorization case well but leaves the two required parameters and the post-resume outcome unexplained. For a state-mutating tool that is a meaningful 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?

Both parameters (id, walletId) have zero schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it contributes nothing about what either identifier refers to. An agent cannot tell from the definition whether walletId is the owning wallet, a funding wallet, or the strategy's execution wallet.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Resume a paused strategy") and names the required precondition state. It does not explicitly contrast with start_strategy, pause_strategy, or stop_strategy, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 states clearly that the target must be paused and adds a concrete eligibility rule: an API key can only resume a strategy it started, otherwise the owner must act in the app. What is missing is any explicit routing against siblings such as start_strategy versus resume_strategy.

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