deploy_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the resume logic (only forward phase, no SQL replay) and idempotent behavior. It does not mention permissions or output format, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining when to use, explaining the behavior, and noting idempotency. No redundant information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: trigger condition, behavior, and side-effect safety. It omits the return value, but that is less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, but the description adds context by specifying that `operation_id` comes from a prior `deploy` call, reinforcing the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's short description.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Resume' and the resource 'deploy operation' with specific conditions (ended in `activation_pending` or `schema_settling`), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like 'deploy'.

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 explains when to use the tool (for operations stuck in specific states) and what happens (re-runs only the failed phase, no SQL replay). It also notes idempotency, providing guidance on calling on terminal operations. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the condition implies it.

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