cloud_resume

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

Annotations already disclose the key traits: readOnlyHint=false (this mutates state), idempotentHint=false (repeating the call may behave differently), and openWorldHint=true. The description adds one behavioral claim — that resumption works from a 'parcial verificable' — but says nothing about what happens to an already-completed job, whether resume restarts from zero, or whether it fails on a non-paused job. Modest added value over 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, with no filler. The trailing clause 'con parcial verificable' is slightly opaque in Spanish and could be tightened, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 tool with no output schema and an entirely undocumented job_id, the description should at minimum state the expected job state, the resume semantics (from partial vs. restart), and any failure/error behavior. None of that is present, so an agent cannot confidently decide between cloud_resume, cloud_pause, and cloud_cancel.

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% and the single required parameter job_id is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning (which kind of job identifier: transfer, pause, download?) must be guessed. The description had room to state what the job_id refers to and did not.

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 gives a clear verb+resource: 'Reanuda' (resumes) applied to 'una pausa o una descarga interrumpida' (a pause or an interrupted download), which an agent can distinguish from the write-oriented sibling cloud_pause. It does not explicitly name cloud_pause or cloud_cancel as complementary/alternative operations, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus cloud_pause, cloud_cancel, or cloud_jobs, nor any precondition (e.g. that the referenced job must already be paused/interrupted). The phrase 'con parcial verificable' hints at a use case but never states an invocation condition or exclusion.

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