container_unpause

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavior: it resumes processes, notes that processes continue from where they were frozen, and explains the return value (State.Paused becomes false). This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear model of the operation's effect.

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 three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage guidance, and parameter/return details. No filler or repetition, and it is front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what happens in the failure case, and what the return value contains. There is no missing information that would cause an agent to misuse the tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and a parameter named `id_or_name` with no description. The description compensates with 'args: id_or_name - The container id or name', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, this is a minimal rephrasing of the parameter name and could add more detail (e.g., accepts ID or name, not both). Still, it is enough to make the parameter understandable.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Resume all processes in a paused container', clearly stating the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `container_pause` by calling itself the reverse, and from `container_start` by specifying the paused vs stopped distinction.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool (only on a paused container), when it fails (if merely stopped), and directs the user to the alternative (`container_start` for stopped containers). This is exactly the kind of clear usage guidance expected.

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