resume_chain

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in annotations — the required prior state — but says nothing about side effects of resuming (e.g., whether paused work re-executes), which matters given the destructive hint.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the constraint immediately following. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 no explanation. The description covers the action and its state precondition, which is sufficient for a single-param state transition, though it leaves the destructive semantics of resuming unexplained.

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?

There is a single required parameter (chain_id) with 0% description coverage in the metric, and the description does not mention it at all. However, the schema's own field description ('Chain identifier') and the low parameter count make this a minimal-risk gap, so the baseline for a near-trivial param set 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 and resource ('Resume a paused chain'), which clearly distinguishes it from pause_chain, complete_chain, and archive_chain in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the operation 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?

'Only valid from paused state' gives an explicit precondition for use, which is the key gating rule for this state-transition tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., what to call instead when the chain is not paused), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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