resume_monitor

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits (e.g., is it reversible? requires permissions? immediate effect?). It only states the action, giving no insight into side effects, idempotency, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 straightforward resume action with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details such as the expected state of the monitor, return value (e.g., confirmation), or whether it applies to all monitor types. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged for clarity.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('monitor_id') with no description, and the tool description does not explain it. With schema coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but fails to provide any parameter context beyond what the schema gives.

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 verb 'Resume' and the resource 'a paused monitor', making the tool's purpose immediately apparent. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'pause_monitor' and 'create_monitor'.

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?

The description implies usage when a monitor is paused, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getting the monitor status first, or using 'pause_monitor'). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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