Resume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lower bar — yet it adds nothing about what state change occurs, what happens if no call is held, or whether the action is scoped to a live CTI session. The only extra information is the POST path, which is developer-facing rather than agent-facing.

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?

It is two tokens long with zero waste, so it is not verbose, but the only content is a redundant verb and a REST path. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 non-idempotent, open-world CTI mutation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs to act safely: what is resumed, required call state, and error behavior. Annotations cover only part of the safety profile.

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 100%, so the schema already documents mac, line, call_id and response_format; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — for example, whether line and call_id must match an active call.

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 is essentially the tool name restated ('Resume') plus an HTTP path fragment. It never says what is being resumed — a held call, a paused line, a recording, or a queue — so an agent cannot distinguish this from siblings like placetel_cti_hold or placetel_cti_answer without guessing.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. The most relevant sibling (placetel_cti_hold) is never referenced, and there is no statement of preconditions such as an existing held call on the given line.

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