resume_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the meaningful fact that resume is asynchronous and completion must be observed via status polling. It does not explain why a resume carries a destructive hint, whether it is repeatable, or any authorization requirement.

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, action first, follow-up second, with no filler. Slightly terse for the amount of missing information, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation the description covers the action and the async follow-up but leaves the parameter meaning and failure/authorization behavior unspecified.

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% and the single required parameter 'name' is undocumented in the schema. The description never clarifies that 'name' identifies the target pipeline, nor any format or naming rules, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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) and resource (pipeline) with a qualifying scope (paused pipeline), which implicitly separates it from the sibling pause_pipeline. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with the alternative sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 is implied by 'a paused pipeline', and the second sentence gives follow-up guidance (poll status to observe completion). There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for other states.

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