resume_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two key limitations (cannot resume closed agents or lifecycle-suspended ones) and the auth requirement (developer key). It does not detail success/failure behavior or side effects, but the most important constraints are surfaced.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by essential constraints. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 covers purpose, exclusions, and authentication. It could mention what happens if the agent is already running or the exact state transition, but the coverage is strong for the tool's complexity.

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 for the single parameter agent_id is 100%, and the schema already describes it as 'Numeric agent id.' The description adds no parameter-specific semantic information, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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+resource construction: 'Resume a paused (suspended) agent.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like pause_agent (the inverse) and close_agent by immediately noting that closed agents cannot be resurrected.

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 gives explicit when-not usage ('Cannot resurrect closed agents or ones suspended by their own lifecycle flows') and states a prerequisite (requires a developer key). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, leaving room for slight ambiguity about when to prefer this over other agent-management actions.

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