Resume slot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (messaging every agent on the slot) and the wake semantics (agents re-read the page and continue). It does not cover failure cases (e.g. what happens if the slot is not paused) or permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the critical usage constraint before describing behavior, and every clause earns its place with no filler. Two tight sentences cover usage, mechanism, and the all-flag.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers when to call it, what it does, and the wake side effect. It omits edge-case behavior (unpausing a non-paused slot) and error/return expectations, but is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining the effect of the flag — 'all=true resumes every paused slot' — which is more than the schema's terse 'All paused slots'. The slot/slots/agent params are left entirely to the schema.

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 — 'Unpauses and messages every agent on the slot to wake it' — and describes the concrete consequence (agents re-read the page and continue). An agent can distinguish this from slot_pause and slot_send without opening any 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 scopes invocation to 'only when the user says to resume (e.g. "continue 3")' and adds a hard when-not rule: 'the agent owning a paused slot never calls it on its own.' This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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