resume_carrier_subscriber

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job explaining the confirm/dry_run safety mechanism: confirm must be true to apply the change unless dry_run is used, and dry_run previews the change. It still omits permissions needed, error conditions (e.g., what if the subscriber is not suspended), and rate limits, so not a perfect score.

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 and the Args/Returns structure is readable, but the Args list includes a phantom parameter and the Returns line is redundant given the output schema. Some space could be saved, but it is not excessively verbose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description leaves significant gaps: it omits the controller parameter and its default behavior, includes incorrect parameter info, and does not cover error cases or side effects. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the rest is insufficient.

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 low (25%). The description adds useful meaning for confirm and dry_run, but it introduces a non-existent 'settings' parameter and omits 'controller', which the schema documents. This inconsistency is misleading and reduces confidence in the parameter contract.

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 states a specific verb ('Resume') and resource ('UniFi Carrier Fabric subscriber') with scope ('suspended'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool suspend_carrier_subscriber. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when a subscriber is suspended. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as update_carrier_subscriber for non-suspension changes. The context is clear enough to infer, but lacks direct routing.

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