resume_transfer

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description only needs to add context — which it does: state preconditions, a backend dependency, and rejected mutation categories. It does not say what happens if the resume is issued against an ineligible task or how repeated resumes behave, but the core behavioral picture is solid.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and eligible states, followed by caveats. No filler.

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 2-parameter mutation with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers states, prerequisites, and rejections. The one gap is the origin/format of job_id, which matters because the schema gives it no documentation.

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 coverage is 0% and neither parameter has a description, so the description carries the burden. It explains rate_limit_bps in prose ('optionally changing its bandwidth limit') but says nothing about job_id — where it comes from or what form it takes.

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 (a persisted transfer task), plus exactly which states are eligible (paused/failed/cancelled). An agent can distinguish it from pause_transfer and cancel_transfer without opening a schema.

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 a clear eligibility condition (task must be persisted and in paused/failed/cancelled state) and explicit exclusions (source changes and account changes are rejected), plus a backend prerequisite for upload block resume. It never names the alternative tools for the non-eligible cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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