resume_schedule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description earns credit mainly by adding the auth prerequisites: account write permission plus the client write scope when hosted, or server --allow-writes locally. It does not, however, explain what the destructive behavior actually is (whether the current hold/setpoint is discarded), which is the one trait an agent would most want clarified.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and state transition, with the precondition sentence following. No redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, state transition and auth requirements adequately. The remaining gap is the effect on existing device state, which matters given the destructive hint but is not described.

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 parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that thermostat_id is the exact id from list_thermostats. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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), the exact resource (the thermostat's programmed schedule), and the originating state (from a hold). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling actions set_temperature and set_hvac_mode, which override rather than restore the program.

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 phrase 'from a hold' implies the condition under which this tool applies, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given (e.g. do not call after set_temperature has already overridden the program). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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