operation_resume

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that this resumes a previously prepared operation after external steps. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like what state changes occur, rate limits, or errors, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the core purpose. No redundant words or filler, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, or any prerequisites beyond 'previously prepared'. Given the complexity of resume operations and the destructive annotation, this lack of contextual detail leaves the agent under-informed.

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 100%, meaning the schema fully documents both resumeState and actionResults. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Resume') and the resource ('previously prepared external-wallet operation'), with a specific condition ('after signatures or transactions complete externally'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like operation_prepare and orbs_prepare_swap_intent, which are about initiating operations.

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 description provides clear usage context: it should be used after external signatures or transactions have completed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the exclusion guidance implied rather than stated.

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