unpause-dag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the write nature (requires --allow-write flag), the state change (sets paused to false), and the return type (CallToolResult confirming). It does not mention idempotency or failure cases, but for a simple state toggle, this is adequate.

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 well-structured with the purpose statement first, then behavior, flags, args, and returns. It is slightly redundant because the Args section duplicates schema descriptions, but it is not overly verbose and every sentence contributes context.

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 simple mutation tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the permission requirement, and what it returns. It does not address edge cases, but those are not critical here.

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 each parameter already has a description in the schema. The description's Args list essentially restates those descriptions, adding no further semantic meaning. The only extra is 'ctx', which is not in the schema but is likely MCP context.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement 'Unpause a DAG' and specifies the exact effect: setting paused status to false, allowing scheduled runs to resume. This distinguishes it from sibling tool pause-dag.

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 indicates when to use the tool: when you want to resume a paused DAG. It also mentions a prerequisite (requires --allow-write flag). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like pause-dag or trigger-dag-run, but the use case is clear.

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