Resume a crawl

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the resume reuses the original start options (so no reconfiguration is possible) and the call returns { taskId } rather than results, requiring polling. It does not mention auth or rate limits.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the essential follow-up workflow packed into the second sentence.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ taskId }) and the polling instruction, which the agent needs to call this correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens when resuming an already-running crawl or whether existing results are preserved.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden for 'id'. It implies the id selects the paused/failed crawl to restart, but gives no format, type, or source (e.g. from crawl/get_crawl) guidance, so it only partially compensates.

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?

Specific verb (Restart) plus resource (crawl) plus the state constraint that makes it applicable (paused or failed). It distinguishes itself from crawl/get_crawl/cancel_crawl by naming the target state, and it names get_crawl as the follow-up polling tool.

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 precondition 'paused or failed crawl' tells the agent when this tool is valid, and 'poll get_crawl' tells it what to do next. There is no explicit when-not (e.g. behavior if the crawl is running or completed), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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