resume_run

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: gates re-check approvals and completed steps are reused rather than recomputed. It still omits auth/permission requirements and what happens to already-failed steps.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key behavioral guarantee. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description conveys the resume semantics well for a simple one-parameter tool. The only material gap is that the run_id parameter is left entirely undocumented.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about run_id at all. Although the name is fairly self-explanatory, the low-coverage rule requires the description to compensate and it does not.

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 (continue/resume) and resource (a run) plus the qualifying state (paused or failed). It implicitly separates itself from start_onboarding_run and get_run_status, but never names a sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 a clear trigger condition: use it for a run that is paused or failed, which contrasts with starting a new run. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives are provided, so it stops short of a 5.

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