pipeline_resume

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, closed-world). The description adds the "actual user decision" and "four-round cap" context, but does not explain what resuming does to run state or what the cap means, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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 with the primary action front-loaded and no filler; the guardrail follows the action, which is the right order.

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 mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the decision payload, state transition, and the four-round cap it references. It leaves all of these undefined.

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 both parameters. The description says the decision must be the "actual user decision," which gives some meaning for `decision`, but explains nothing about the `run_id` UUID or the decision's expected format/content. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (resume) and resource (a paused run), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling pipeline_pause. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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?

"Resume a paused run" implies the precondition (the run must be paused) and the guardrail about not inventing an answer hints at how the decision should be sourced. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to pipeline_status / pipeline_apply_fixes as alternatives.

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