enable_items

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that partial failures are tolerated ('one bad id does not abort the rest'), describes the return format ('each result reports the read-back configured_status'), and mentions the consequence of restarting spend. No contradictions with 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 succinct sentences: the first delivers the core purpose, the second adds essential behavioral details (partial failure handling, output format). No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description fully covers behavior, error handling, and return shape. It addresses the tool's effect on spend and status change, making it complete for an AI agent.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond reinforcing that item_ids must all be of the same type. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool 'resume[s] delivery on one or more entities of a single type' and specifies it sets configured_status to ACTIVE. This distinguishes it from sibling 'pause_items' (which would do the opposite) and explains core functionality.

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 implicitly indicates this is for enabling or resuming delivery, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'pause_items' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit usage context beyond the action itself.

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