Resume a paused watch (free)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals key behavioral traits: deadlines restart, schedules jump to future slots, and no elapsed time replays. This goes beyond a simple 'resumes a paused watch' and gives the agent a concrete mental model of the operation's effects.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the core concept ('Backlog-free resume') and then elaborates with specifics. There is no filler or redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description explains the central behavior clearly, but it omits parameter details and any mention of return values or error conditions. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional inference, though the primary semantics are covered.

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 defines 'secret' and 'watchId' with no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention either parameter. With schema coverage at 0%, the description should have compensated by explaining what these parameters mean, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'resume' and names the resource 'watch', clearly indicating the action. It further clarifies scope by stating 'heartbeat deadlines restart from now and schedules jump to their next FUTURE slot', distinguishing it from pause_watch and other lifecycle tools.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use the tool or contrast it with alternatives, but the behavior is clearly contextualized as a resume operation that is 'backlog-free'. This gives enough context for an agent to infer it is the counterpart to pause_watch, though no direct exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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