resume_team

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the behavioral detail of 'preserving a link to the prior team ledger', which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what 'restart' means in terms of state changes (e.g., whether it resets progress or just re-triggers execution), leaving some ambiguity about side effects. With annotations covering the mutation/safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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, tightly written sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a key detail (preserving ledger link) without clutter. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the purpose and the condition for use (interrupted or failed teams). It does not describe return values or asynchronous behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations covering safety, it is adequate for an agent to make a correct call. The missing parameter documentation is the main gap, but that is already penalized in parameter_semantics.

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 defines a single parameter, team_id, with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation. The parameter name 'team_id' is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantics about the expected value (e.g., 'the ID of the team to resume'). This is a clear gap given the low coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Restart'), a clear resource ('an interrupted or failed team'), and a distinct scope ('from its original assignments'). It also adds the detail of preserving a link to the prior ledger, which helps differentiate it from start_team (creating new) and continue_run (resuming runs). The purpose is 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?

The description explicitly conditions the tool on teams that are 'interrupted or failed', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives like start_team for new teams, but the condition implies that distinction. No exclusions are stated, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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