snowflake_resume_compute_pool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Resume' which implies a state mutation, but gives no information about side effects, costs, idempotency, what happens if the pool is already running, or the success/failure response. The agent has limited insight into the operation's behavior beyond the simple verb.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and object. It is highly efficient with no wasted words or filler. However, it may be too terse, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity, but as a standalone statement it is admirably concise.

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-changing operation with no annotations and minimal description, the context is incomplete. The agent lacks guidance on state prerequisites, post-condition expectations, or handling of edge cases. While an output schema exists, the description itself does not explain what a successful resume entails or any caveats, making it insufficient for confident invocation without additional investigation.

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 has zero description coverage for the single required parameter 'pool_name'. The description does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints beyond the term 'pool' which mirrors the resource name. Since the schema provides no documentation, the description should compensate, but it fails to add any semantic value beyond what the parameter name itself offers.

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 identifies the action ('Resume') and the target resource ('SPCS compute pool'), with the condition 'idle or suspended' adding specificity. It distinguishes from related siblings like suspend, describe, and list compute pools, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives. A clear, direct statement of what the tool does.

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 implies usage when a pool is idle or suspended, giving some context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., already running), no mention of prerequisites such as checking state, and no naming of alternatives or error conditions. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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