Resume evaluation of a paused objective by providing its objective ID, optionally storing a reason note on the decision record.
Resume evaluation for a paused objective
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Optional note stored on the decision record | |
| objectiveId | Yes | Objective ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Resume evaluation' implies a state mutation, but the description says nothing about what changes, whether it is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how it interacts with the paired pause tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves little room to earn additional value.
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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what happens on success, whether the resume is reversible, and how it relates to the pause/restore siblings. An agent would need to guess at the surrounding workflow.
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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only context that the objectiveId should reference a paused objective, no syntax or format detail beyond that.
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 (objective) plus the precondition state (paused). It is clearly understandable on its own, though it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as aureon_pause_objective, aureon_restore_objective, or aureon_update_objective.
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 phrase 'for a paused objective' implies the trigger condition, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over aureon_restore_objective or aureon_update_objective, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.