resume_execution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds the continuation semantics and notes a confirmation message is returned (useful with no output schema), but says nothing about failure when the execution is not paused or permission requirements, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies purpose, prerequisite, and return behavior. Without an output schema and without stating error/edge-case conditions, it is nearly but not fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter (execution_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it and the description adds no format or source guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured data carries the parameter semantics.

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 (paused pipeline execution) plus the scope qualifier 'continuing from where it was halted,' which distinguishes it from restart_stage, trigger_pipeline, and get_execution. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Explicitly says to use it 'after pause_execution once the manual review or intervention is complete,' naming the counterpart tool and the triggering condition. It does not address when-not to use it (e.g., a canceled or already-running execution) or other alternatives like cancel_execution.

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