container_unpause

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: it fails on stopped containers, resumes from frozen state, and describes the return flag ('State.Paused becomes false'). This covers the essential behavioral traits without contradiction. It does not mention potential side effects beyond resuming processes, but the disclosure is solid for a simple tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence action, a condition/alternative note, a remark on process behavior, and explicitly labeled args/returns. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.

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 is complete: it covers the action, prerequisite/state, failure condition, alternative tool, return type and value change. No gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a basic but sufficient explanation: 'id_or_name - The container id or name'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose but adds little beyond the parameter name itself. For a single self-explanatory parameter, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Resume all processes in a paused container'. It also explicitly identifies the relationship to sibling tools ('the reverse of container_pause') and differentiates it from container_start, 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Only valid on a paused container — it fails if the container is merely stopped; use container_start for stopped containers.' This directly instructs on conditions and alternatives, which is exemplary usage guidance.

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