compose_unpause

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

With annotations already indicating a mutating but non-destructive operation, the description adds valuable context: it clarifies the resume-from-frozen behavior and the non-raising exit strategy. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 efficiently structured: purpose first, then comparisons, then error behavior, then parameters, then return value. No fluff, though the args list could be slightly more concise; each sentence contributes useful information.

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 state-changing compose tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, alternatives, error behavior, parameter semantics, and return format. It leaves out prerequisites like project existence but that's inferable from context.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (services, project_dir, files, project_name) with defaults and special notes (e.g., project_dir copied to target host if no local plugin). This adds meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Unpause the containers of a compose project'. It clearly distinguishes from compose_pause (reverse) and compose_start (counterpart for stopped containers), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Reverse of compose_pause' and 'compose_start is the counterpart for stopped containers'. Also provides guidance on error handling (does not raise on non-zero exit) which informs proper invocation.

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