job.resume

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

Annotations provide no readOnly/destructive context (all false). The description adds minimal behavioral metadata: 'Risk: standard; maturity: L4' and a requirement that session policy applies. It does not explain what resuming does (e.g., whether it is idempotent, whether it continues a paused job, or what side effects it has). This is some context, but not much. No contradiction with annotations observed.

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 very short and structurally clear, but it spends its space on a command-name restatement and vague metadata rather than on operational content. It is concise but lacks informative value, so it earns a middle score.

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 that the tool is one of several job lifecycle operations (submit, status, cancel, recover), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the job-resume semantics, required preconditions (e.g., a paused job), or output expectations. There is an output schema, so return values are not described, but the core function is not explained.

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 60% (3 of 5 params have descriptions). The description does not explain any parameter semantics, including the required jobId. It only says 'Per-request argument checks' without specifying what checks or how to construct arguments. It fails to compensate for the missing jobId description.

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 only restates the command name ('PartMe Blender Harness command `job.resume`') without any verb or statement of what the tool does. It does not say that it resumes a paused or interrupted job, nor does it distinguish from job_status, job_submit, or job_cancel. This is nearly tautological.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' but that is a requirement, not a usage condition. It does not reference alternative tools such as blender_job_submit, blender_job_cancel, or blender_job_recover, nor explain when resume is appropriate.

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