rollout_resume

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds a medium-risk classification and, more usefully, the dry_run preview mechanism, which is not expressed in annotations. It stops short of describing effects on in-flight pods or permissions needed, and the 'risk=medium' label sits somewhat awkwardly against destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loads operation class, risk, and the inverse relationship in sentence one, then preview semantics, then the args block. Slight repetition of dry_run between the summary and the args list is acceptable given the zero schema coverage.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action, safety, the inverse alternative, and every parameter's meaning. Missing only the post-resume effect description and any permission prerequisites.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does: it explains name, namespace default ('omit for the target's default namespace'), dry_run behavior, and the origin of target ('k8s target name from config'). Only target's semantics beyond provenance remain thin.

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 ('Resume a paused deployment's rollout') and immediately differentiates from a sibling by naming the inverse operation, rollout_pause. The [WRITE][risk=medium] tag adds operation class up front.

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 the selecting condition (a paused rollout) and names rollback point to rollout_pause as the inverse. It also tells the agent how to safely trial the action via dry_run=True, but does not say when to prefer rollout_undo_deployment or other rollout_* siblings.

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