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

Annotations establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the sequencing requirement at curation checkpoints, but says nothing about what continuation does to the run, credit consumption, or reversibility. With annotations carrying part of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Every clause contributes either the action or the checkpoint prerequisite.

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 mutation with annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key curation prerequisite adequately. Minor gaps remain around what the continuation returns and the general precondition for non-curation paused runs, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is absent.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating that candidate_set_digest and approved_candidate_ids must first be obtained from the workflow run curation API and supplied together at a curation checkpoint, clarifying a cross-parameter dependency the schema alone does not express.

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 ('Continue a paused workflow run'), which distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings like get_workflow_run and the terminal siblings cancel_workflow_run. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with retry_workflow_run or start_workflow, leaving some ambiguity about which resume path applies.

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 description implies usage context by naming the curation checkpoint case and telling the agent what to supply at that point. It gives no guidance on when to use this versus retry_workflow_run or start_workflow, nor on the preconditions for resuming a non-curation paused run.

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