chap.control.resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does this well by enumerating the exact state transitions: task to in_progress, participant assignable again, workspace active. It omits details like authorization requirements and return shape, but the core mutation behavior is clear.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the verb and scope, then uses a colon to enumerate the three concrete outcomes. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 five parameters but full schema coverage, the combination of description and schema gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly and understand the three scope behaviors. The lack of an output schema means return behavior is not described, but this is not essential for selection or invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents every parameter including examples, defaults, and the -32061 refusal case. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond restating the scope outcomes, so it meets the baseline but does not go further.

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 names a specific action ('resume') and a resource ('work paused at the same scope'), then precisely defines the outcome for each of the three scopes: task, participant, and workspace. It is not a tautology and is clearly differentiated from sibling control tools like pause, cancel, and supersede.

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 phrase 'Resume work paused at the same scope' clearly limits the tool to previously paused entities, which helps an agent avoid using it on active or canceled work. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'do not use when X', but the intended condition is strongly implied.

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