resume_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains state requirements, the effect of queue_name (enqueue vs immediate), and the bypass behavior for ENQUEUED workflows. This is solid behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't cover potential edge cases like idempotency or failure behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear main sentence, usage constraints, Args section, and Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and the format aids readability.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. The output schema and parameter documentation make it self-sufficient. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing external information.

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 must fully explain parameters. The Args section does exactly that, providing names, types, requiredness, and meaning (e.g., 'If provided, enqueue the resumed workflow onto this queue instead of running it immediately'). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 states the tool's function: 'Resume a workflow' with specific conditions ('in CANCELLED state'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_workflow and bulk_resume_workflows by focusing on a single workflow action.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: resumes CANCELLED workflows and can start ENQUEUED ones immediately. Also states exclusions ('You cannot resume a workflow in any other state'). However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools like bulk_resume_workflows, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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