clash.transaction.resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it does not write configuration but omits what happens on success/failure, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. The agent lacks insight into side effects or validation 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?

Two concise sentences, no redundancy. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides critical clarification. Every word 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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status or transaction state). It also lacks prerequisites or error handling. For a simple tool with one parameter, the current description is incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 single parameter 'transactionId' is described in the schema as 'Persisted pending transaction ID'. The tool description adds context by specifying it must be a PENDING_RESTART transaction. This adds marginal value but does not provide format or source details beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool resumes verification of a persisted PENDING_RESTART transaction after a restart, and explicitly notes it does not write configuration. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_transaction or rollback.

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 provides context for use (after restart) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. It implies it is only for resuming pending transactions, but an agent would benefit from knowing not to use it for applying or rolling back.

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