Resume task

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the suspended-only precondition and refusal behavior, the write-gate requirement with dry-run fallback, the taskName/taskOid cross-validation refusal, and that the result reports executionState read back after the call. That is exactly the mutation, authorization, and post-condition context an agent needs.

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 tool-specific content is front-loaded and efficient: purpose, refusal condition, parameter intent, auth behavior, and return value each get a clause with no padding. The trailing block about untrusted quote text and display names is generic policy boilerplate not specific to this tool, which slightly dilutes the definition.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers preconditions, authorization/dry-run behavior, parameter coupling, and the post-call state readout; an output schema exists so detailed return shape is unnecessary. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and the taskName property description already states 'as list_tasks and get_task give it; must match taskOid', so most of the description's parameter text is duplicative. It adds only the rationale that the name is what the confirming person reads, which is a modest value-add beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resume a suspended midPoint server task') and extends scope precisely to 'a closed recurring one', with the outcome ('so it runs or is scheduled again'). This clearly separates it from siblings like suspend_task and run_task without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition and exclusion: 'A task that is not suspended is refused.' It also tells the agent what happens without the write gate (dry-run preview). It stops short of naming the sibling tools (suspend_task, run_task) as the alternatives, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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