resume_automation

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only; the description usefully adds that it clears explicit/manual-change suppression and specifically does not replay missed or already claimed occurrences. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not address permissions or reversibility explicitly.

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 tight sentences, with the core action and agreement condition front-loaded and no redundant text.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description provides useful scope and non-replay behavior. It remains incomplete on what `target` should contain and what a successful call returns or changes beyond the suppression flag.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains `confirmed=true` as reflecting user agreement, but leaves `target` vague despite being the required parameter.

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 effect: clearing the target's explicit/manual-change suppression after user agreement. It is clear enough to distinguish from routine-listing or setup-status siblings, but it does not name the relevant sibling alternatives.

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 `confirmed=true` parenthetical implies the tool should be used after user agreement, and the non-replay sentence sets a boundary. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related routine/update tools, nor any named alternative.

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