art.production.resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'resume' but does not explain the effects, prerequisites (e.g., whether the job must be in a specific state), side effects, or potential outcomes. It doesn't disclose what happens if the job is not failed/interrupted, nor does it mention any auth or resource requirements. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or redundancy. Every word adds value in defining the tool's purpose.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the trigger condition ('failed or interrupted') but omits behavioral details like state transitions, error handling, or idempotency. While not incomplete enough to be unusable, it leaves agents guessing about post-call behavior and failure modes.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter (job_id, 'Production job ID') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline of 3 for schema-covered parameters. No extra value is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resume') with a clear resource ('production job') and scope ('failed or interrupted'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'start' (new jobs) or 'cancel' (stopping jobs). No ambiguity in intent.

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?

It explicitly states the condition for use ('failed or interrupted'), which provides clear usage context. While it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., don't use on completed jobs), the condition is sufficiently clear to differentiate from related tools. The absence of explicit alternatives is a minor gap.

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