deploy_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: idempotency, that only the failed phase is re-run, that SQL is never replayed, and the outcome when called on an already-terminal operation. This is good but could mention return value structure.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key condition and purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without any fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: states to resume from, idempotency, and a typical failure scenario. It lacks details on possible errors or return format, but these are not critical for agent invocation.

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% with a single parameter (operation_id) described as 'Operation id returned by a prior `deploy` call. Required.' The description adds no new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 a deploy operation that ended in specific states ('activation_pending' or 'schema_settling'), using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by defining its precise role in the deploy lifecycle, even without explicit comparison.

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 clear conditions for use (resuming a deploy in certain states) and includes a concrete example (transient gateway failure). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other deploy tools or state when not to use it, though the context implies its specific utility.

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