fleet_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing that this touches physical printers, that the first invocation is a non-executing proposal, and that execution is delegated to Kiln's own tools with all their safety checks. It stays silent on force's effect and on how many printers are affected by default.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but two sentences of tier marketing and an upgrade URL take up nearly as much space as the operational contract. The valuable execution-flow sentence is buried last.

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 fleet-wide mutation with zero annotations and no output schema, the description covers the confirmation loop but leaves gaps an agent needs: the blast radius when printer_names is omitted, what force overrides, and whether Business entitlement failure modes are surfaced. Adequate but not 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 67% but the schema text is near-empty ('Default: ""', 'Default: false'), so the description's explanation of run_actions as the actions_digest round-trip is genuinely valuable. However force and printer_names receive no semantics at all in either place, and it's unclear whether omitting printer_names resumes every paused print fleet-wide.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb, resource and scope: resume paused prints across the whole fleet, which distinguishes it from the single-printer resume_print and from pipeline_resume. The tier/upsell sentences add noise but don't obscure the purpose.

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?

It explains the two-phase invocation contract clearly: the first call returns planned actions and runs nothing, and the second call passes the returned actions_digest as run_actions. What is missing is any guidance on when to prefer this over fleet_pause, resume_print or pipeline_resume, or when printer_names should be used to narrow scope.

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