ResumeTaskInstances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation (though 'resume' implies mutation), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens to task state, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that presumably changes system state, this is critically insufficient.

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 extremely concise - just three Chinese characters that directly convey the core action. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as a standalone attribute, it's maximally efficient.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'resuming' entails, when to use it, what behavioral characteristics it has, or what to expect as a result. Given the complexity of task instance management and the lack of structured metadata, this description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool use.

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%, with both parameters ('Ids' and 'Comment') having clear descriptions in Chinese. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description contributes zero value regarding parameters.

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 '恢复任务实例' (Resume task instances) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ResumeTaskInstances' in Chinese. While it indicates the action (resume) and resource (task instances), it lacks specificity about what 'resume' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'RerunTaskInstances', 'StartWorkflowInstances', or 'StopTaskInstances' that also manipulate task/workflow instances.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that manipulate task instances (RerunTaskInstances, StopTaskInstances, SuspendTaskInstances, SetSuccessTaskInstances), but the description offers no context about when resuming is appropriate versus rerunning, stopping, or other operations.

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