resume_trading

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the three behaviors restored (trading, trigger arming, firing), which goes beyond the name, but omits permissions, whether resuming is idempotent when already active, failure behavior, and side effects on pending triggers.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the reversal relationship comes first and the effect list second. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter state-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what changes but not the identifier's semantics, error conditions, or authorization needs. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The single required parameter trader_id is documented neither in the schema (0% coverage) nor in the description. The one-parameter shape is guessable, but no format, source, or scope for the identifier is given, so semantics rest entirely on convention.

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 and effect ('Lift the kill switch') and names the sibling tool it reverses (pause_trading), letting an agent place it precisely among 17 siblings. The follow-on sentence enumerates exactly what resumes.

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?

Use context is clear and explicit: this is the counterpart to pause_trading, so an agent knows to call it after a pause. No when-not guidance (e.g., calling it when already running, or which trader states make it valid) is offered.

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