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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that a run is resumed and that a human has decided, but it does not disclose the consequences of that decision: approving may execute the previously gated call, rejecting may deny it, and editing changes the arguments before execution. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the trigger second. There is no filler, and it is easy for an agent to scan and understand in one pass.

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 a full schema, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description does not need to restate parameters or return values. However, the absence of any behavioral/safety context, no annotations, and no statement about what approve/reject/edit causes, leaves the context only partially complete for a tool that gates a destructive call.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including the required reason for reject and the arguments field for edit. The prose adds no parameter-level detail beyond the phrase 'gated tool call,' which gives context but does not add semantics beyond the schema.

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 action ('Resume'), a specific resource ('a paused agent run'), and the exact trigger ('after a human decides on a gated tool call'). This is not a tautology and clearly differentiates the tool from siblings such as agent_run_cancel, agent_run_status, and agent_run_followup.

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 condition for use: a paused agent run that is waiting on a human decision about a gated tool call. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use it or name alternatives like request_gated_approval or agent_run_followup, so it stops short of exhaustive routing guidance.

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