Resume an Evergreen queue

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine value by explaining that resuming recomputes the next occurrence from the current time, which is a non-obvious side effect consistent with the non-idempotent hint, but it omits whether already-scheduled posts are dropped, shifted, or duplicated.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the key side effect in the second clause. Nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the scheduling side effect, which is the main thing an agent needs. It still leaves the parameter undocumented and does not explain the observable result of the recomputation.

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 queueId parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning (no format, no source of the ID, no behavior on an invalid/unknown ID).

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?

Names a specific verb ('Resume') and resource ('a paused queue') plus the scheduling consequence, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling activate_evergreen_queue, which an agent could reasonably confuse with resuming.

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 phrase 'a paused queue' implicitly tells the agent the precondition (the queue must already be paused, presumably via pause_evergreen_queue), but it never states when to choose this over activate_evergreen_queue or what happens if the queue is not paused.

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