workflow_resume

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that uncertain non-idempotent in-flight steps are converted to needs_review and never auto-replayed, while only policy-declared idempotent steps may be retried. This is genuine mutation semantics that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) do not convey. It lacks auth/permission or rate-limit detail, so not a 5.

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 bolded, labeled clauses that are front-loaded (Purpose, then Safety). No filler sentences. Slightly terse, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the safety model is covered. But for a resumption mutation with a required nested target and no parameter description, an agent is missing how to identify the workflow and target, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it says nothing about 'id' or the nested 'target' object (bot_id/guild_id/channel_id/profile_id). With a nested required object fully undocumented in prose, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Explicitly resume a durable workflow after review.' An agent understands this continues a paused workflow, and 'after review' loosely ties it to the workflow lifecycle. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the obvious siblings workflow_start, workflow_status, or workflow_cancel.

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?

'After review' implies the trigger condition, but the description never states when to reach for this versus workflow_status (to inspect) or workflow_start (to begin). Usage is left implicit rather than spelled out with alternatives or exclusions.

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