resume_connection

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 core action, the deferred sync behavior, and the response format (compact by default, verbose with flag). This is solid, though it doesn't address edge cases like already-active connections or error conditions.

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 that front-load the primary action, then provide the most relevant behavioral detail (scheduled sync and response format). No waste.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the key timing behavior, and response verbosity. It is sufficient for a competent agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that verbose=true returns full response, but adds no additional meaning 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 starts with a clear verb+resource construction: 'Resume a paused connection.' This directly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like pause_connection and trigger_sync.

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?

It clearly explains when to use the tool (when a connection is paused) and gives a key condition: it will sync on the next scheduled interval, not immediately. This implicitly contrasts with trigger_sync, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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