unpause_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'resume' but does not clarify what happens if the schedule is already running, whether it's idempotent, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (4 words), but it is not a complete sentence and lacks structure. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place as it could be inferred from the tool name and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about return values, concurrency, or what 'resume' entails operationally, which would enhance completeness.

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 is 100%, with both parameters already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Resume a paused schedule' clearly states the verb 'Resume' and the resource 'paused schedule'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pause_schedule (opposite) and delete_schedule (different operation). However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., immediate resumption or scheduling).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., trigger_schedule, start_workflow). There is no mention of prerequisites such as the schedule must be paused first. The description provides no context for decision-making between siblings.

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