Resume a paused site

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, open-world, mutating), and the description adds genuine operational context: the call is refused with a reason when the plan has no room, the account is past due, or the site was operator-suspended. That failure-mode disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot express, though permissions/authorization needs are not mentioned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the failure conditions; no padding and no repetition of the name.

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 idempotent state-toggle with full annotation coverage, a complete output schema, and a fully documented single required parameter, the description supplies everything an agent needs, including the non-obvious refusal reasons.

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 single parameter already documents that it accepts a subdomain or site id sourced from list_sites. The description adds no format, naming, or resolution detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('puts a paused site back on the air'), which is the exact inverse of the sibling pause_site, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

The phrase 'paused site' makes the use context clear and the listed refusal conditions implicitly bound when the call can succeed. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., what to do instead when the plan is over quota or the account is past due), so there is no explicit exclusions/alternative routing.

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