resume_account_actions

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing a side effect ('probe the signed-in home page') and a scope limitation ('Does not reset budgets'), which clarifies what is not affected. No contradiction with the 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and then the effect and its limit. Every clause carries information; there is no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, the sole parameter is completely undocumented and the description is terse for a non-read-only operation, leaving the 'account' argument under-specified.

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 0% and the single required 'account' parameter has no description in either schema or the description text. The definition does not compensate at all for that gap, leaving the agent to infer what value 'account' expects.

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 states a specific action: resume account actions by probing the signed-in home page and clearing the local pause, which clearly distinguishes it from its sibling pause_account_actions. The 'resume' verb and the subject matter make the tool's function legible without opening the schema.

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?

'After resolving a challenge' is an explicit precondition that tells the agent exactly when to invoke this rather than pause_account_actions. It does not name the sibling as an alternative, but the trigger condition is stated clearly enough to route usage.

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