resume_autopilot

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing the tier gate (pioneer_plus), the backing endpoint, and the important semantic that recommendations remain gated separately from transaction execution. Annotations cover mutation/open-world hints, so the remaining gaps (non-idempotency consequences, error behavior on an already-running session) are minor.

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?

Two sentences with the capability/tier/endpoint metadata front-loaded and the core action stated immediately after. No filler, though the bracketed prefix is dense and slightly crowds out the operational sentence.

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 gated, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the tier requirement and gating semantics but omits parameter meaning and failure modes entirely. Just adequate, not complete.

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 description coverage is 0% for three required parameters, and the description never mentions sessionId, agentAddress, or sessionToken. The agent gets no guidance on token provenance or address binding, which is a real gap for an authenticated mutation.

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 ('Resume the backend cycle scheduler') and scopes it to 'a paused agent session', which clearly distinguishes it from pause_autopilot/configure_autopilot. It stops short of naming the sibling counterpart explicitly, but the action 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 'paused agent session' precondition is implied by 'Resume', but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, what happens if the session is not paused, or which sibling (e.g. autopilot_cycle, get_cycle_status) to use instead.

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