invariance_monitor_resume

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

The description adds the behavioral effect that the monitor 'begins firing again,' which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior on an already-active monitor, error conditions, or whether the resume is idempotent, leaving some ambiguity 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 focused sentence that leads with the action and immediately conveys the outcome. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 state-transition tool, the description covers the essential usage and effect. The safety profile is partly covered by annotations, and no output schema exists, so return-value details are not strictly needed. It could add an explicit note about calling on an already-running monitor, but overall it is sufficient.

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 schema only defines 'id' as a string with no description, and the description does not explicitly state that id refers to the monitor to resume. However, with a single parameter and direct phrasing, the intended meaning is inferable, though more explicit parameter documentation would be better.

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 states the specific action ('Re-enable'), the resource ('a paused monitor'), and the resulting behavior ('begins firing again'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like invariance_monitor_pause and invariance_monitor_update.

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 condition for use is clear: the monitor must be paused, and the effect is that it resumes firing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the inverse relationship to 'pause' is strongly implied.

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