Warehouses Resume Warehouse

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety/idempotency is covered structurally. The description adds only the suspended-state precondition; it omits meaningful behavioral context such as the compute credits that begin accruing on resume or permission requirements, which would be valuable for a state-changing, potentially cost-incurring operation.

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, appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter action. It is efficient but borderline under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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?

Output schema and annotations relieve the description of return-value and safety explanation, and the parameter is well documented in the schema. However, for a costly state transition (starting a warehouse), the absence of any cost/authorization note leaves a gap an agent would benefit from filling.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already fully documents warehouse_name including the quoting rule for non-uppercase names. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (virtual warehouse) with a precondition (suspended), so the agent knows exactly what operation occurs. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like warehouses_suspend_warehouse or warehouses_resize_warehouse, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Resume a suspended virtual warehouse' implies the usage condition (the warehouse is currently suspended), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus recreate/resize, and no note about alternatives or prerequisites.

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