workflow_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Resume a blocked workflow back to its pre-blocked phase' describes the intended effect but omits what happens if the workflow is not blocked, whether the operation is reversible, whether the reason is validated, or what the response contains. For a state-mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Extremely efficient: one front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact args list. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler. The purpose is stated first, which is the ideal structure for an agent scanning quickly.

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?

Although an output schema exists and both parameters are documented, this is a state-mutation tool with no annotations and no behavioral disclosure. The description omits error conditions (e.g., resuming a non-blocked workflow), prerequisites (must the workflow currently be blocked?), and post-conditions. For a tool that changes workflow state, the agent needs more than 'resume' to call it 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 0%, but the description documents both parameters: reason ('Why the blocker is resolved') and project_dir ('Project directory. Defaults to working directory.'). This compensates for the missing schema descriptions. However, the reason parameter's meaning is thin — it doesn't clarify whether it is required, whether it affects the transition, or what format is expected.

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?

States a specific verb (resume) and resource (blocked workflow), and specifies the outcome (return to pre-blocked phase). This distinguishes it from siblings like workflow_block, workflow_waive_guard, and workflow_transition without naming them explicitly. It doesn't name the sibling it is not, but the action is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from the block/transition family.

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 'blocked workflow' implies the tool is for unblocking, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. It never states when not to use it or which sibling to pick instead (e.g., workflow_waive_guard for waiving a guard without resuming). Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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