gis.resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key fork — approved=True proceeds past confirmation, False aborts — but says nothing about token expiry, what aborting does to prior work, or permission requirements, which matters for a state-changing confirmation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence states the action and its precondition, followed by a compact Args block that adds only parameter meaning. No filler, though the docstring-style formatting is slightly verbose versus inline phrasing.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the trigger state and both parameter meanings. Error and expiry behavior are the remaining omissions, but they are modest against this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: resume_token is sourced explicitly ('the token from the blocked RunReport') and approved's boolean polarity is spelled out in both directions. Minor gaps remain (token format/lifetime) but the ambiguous boolean is fully clarified.

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 names a specific verb and object ('Resume a blocked execution') plus the trigger state ('after a confirm step'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like gis.run or gis.run_plan. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Resume a blocked execution after a confirm step' establishes a clear precondition for use, and the approved flag documents the two branches (proceed vs abort). No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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