Resume project

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: paused services resume, billing-freeze pauses are not overridden until payment, and the return value reports resumed vs. skipped items with reasons. The only gap is that it does not state what permissions or account-level payment state are required.

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?

Three sentences, fully front-loaded: trigger first, billing-freeze caveat second, return semantics third. No filler and every sentence carries operational meaning.

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, the description correctly pre-announces the shape of the return value ('what was resumed and what was skipped, with why'). Combined with annotations and a fully documented single parameter, this is nearly complete; it only lacks auth/permission expectations for a state-changing project operation.

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% and the single 'project' parameter is already documented as accepting name, slug, or ID. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, but for a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.

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 uses a specific verb-and-resource pairing ('start again the services of a Lizard project') and scopes it to paused projects, which distinguishes it from project_pause, service_resume, and workspace_resume in the sibling list.

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 gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('when the user wants to start again the services of a Lizard project that they paused') and names a specific exclusion for billing-frozen projects. It does not name sibling alternatives like service_resume or workspace_resume, but the project-level scope makes the routing fairly unambiguous.

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