resume_download

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: partial failure semantics (per-id rejection with 405 while other ids still resume). It does not cover idempotency or required permissions, but the partial-success contract is the key operational detail and it is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter, then the failure behavior. No filler; every clause carries operational information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation and its partial-failure edge case. The only gap is nothing about permissions or ordering, which is minor for a one-parameter resume tool.

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%, so the description carries the burden, but all it adds is that `task_ids` is a list — information already conveyed by type: array. It does not describe the ID format, source of IDs, or whether duplicates are tolerated.

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 (paused download tasks) with explicit scope (one or more). An agent can immediately distinguish it from pause_download, create_download, and delete_download without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly scopes usage to paused tasks and states that active or finished tasks are refused with error 405, which tells the agent the precondition. It does not explicitly name the sibling used to pause tasks or state what to do on refusal, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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