Resume Hermes scheduled job

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the 'writing redacted receipts' side effect note, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose failure modes, permission requirements, or state-change specifics beyond annotations.

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?

Single compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes the endpoint details and side-effect note. No wasted words, though 'Typed POST ... wrapper' boilerplate is somewhat verbose and could be considered unnecessary for the agent.

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 single-parameter internal API wrapper with a simple action (resume), the description is reasonably complete. It has an output schema, full param coverage, and adequate annotations. It could benefit from noting prerequisites (e.g., job must exist and be paused), but overall it's sufficient for the complexity level.

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 100% and the single required parameter (job_id) is well documented as 'Unique job identifier' in the schema. The description's mention of the POST endpoint path (/api/jobs/{job_id}/resume) reinforces how job_id binds to the URL, adding mild value. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds a small increment.

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 specifies the verb (resume), resource (previously paused scheduled Hermes cron job), and mentions the side effect of writing redacted receipts. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like hermes_api_jobs_pause and hermes_api_jobs_run, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative 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 clearly indicates this applies to 'previously paused' jobs, which implies the tool is for resuming paused jobs specifically. However, it doesn't name sibling alternatives (like hermes_api_jobs_run) or explicitly say when NOT to use it.

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