resume_migration

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-destructive operation, so the description's added status constraints and prerequisite (manual step completed) are valuable behavioral context. It does not describe downstream effects in detail, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden and there is no contradiction.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences: the first states what the tool does, and the second gives the usage condition. No filler or redundant information.

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 single-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description supplies essential state preconditions, usage timing, and a concrete example. It could explicitly mention behavior when called on a migration in an invalid state, but the description is adequate for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter, id, as a required UUID migration ID with 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Resume a migration', and further scopes it to exact states: PAUSED_BY_USER or PAUSED_FOR_USER_ACTION. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like pause_migration, retry_migration_job, and confirm_migration.

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?

It gives clear context: use it after the user has completed a required manual step, with concrete examples like DNS configuration and backend switchover review. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the intended scenario is well established.

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