direct_resume_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a write operation requiring explicit allow_write=true and flags a safety boundary about needing owner intent for Chat/Skazki. However, it does not describe what happens on execution (status change, cost impact) or error behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, prerequisites, and a safety warning. No filler, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, required conditions, and key exclusions. However, it lacks details on return values, execution behavior, and what 'resume' specifically changes, leaving room for an agent to misinfer.

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 coverage is 50% (project and allow_write have descriptions; dry_run and campaign_ids do not). The description adds that allow_write and project/campaign_ids are required for the operation, but does not explain dry_run semantics beyond what one schema field implies.

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 opens with 'WRITE: resume suspended campaigns,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like direct_suspend_campaigns and direct_unarchive_campaigns by precisely targeting the action on suspended campaigns.

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 implies when to use (resuming suspended campaigns) and provides an explicit warning: 'Do NOT auto-resume killed Chat/Skazki without owner intent.' It also states prerequisites ('Requires allow_write=true + project/campaign_ids'), but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools.

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