qemu_resume

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call silently succeeds when the VM was never paused — a behavior that idempotentHint only hints at, and which matters for verifying state. The QMP `cont` mapping also tells the agent what happens underneath. It does not describe the response payload, but annotations plus the output schema cover the safety profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the sibling reference, then the one caveat that changes agent behavior. Nothing is padded.

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 low-complexity state-transition tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the action, precondition, and no-op edge case. The only missing piece an agent needs is what `name` refers to.

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 0% for the single required `name` parameter, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing: it never says whether `name` is the VM identifier from qemu_list, a domain name, or a UUID, nor whether it must match a running/paused VM. This is the definition's clearest gap.

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 (resume) plus resource (a paused VM) and anchors it to the sibling that creates the state it undoes ('previously paused with qemu_pause'), even citing the underlying QMP command `cont`. An agent can distinguish this from qemu_boot and qemu_stop without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (VM was paused via qemu_pause) and an edge case (no-op if not paused). It does not explicitly contrast with qemu_boot, the alternative for a non-running VM, but the pairing with qemu_pause makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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