Resume Schedule

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent behavior, so the description adds minimal value beyond the 'paused' state. It does not disclose side effects of resuming, such as whether it triggers an immediate run, or what errors occur for non-paused schedules.

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?

The description is one short sentence with no filler words, making it front-loaded and concise. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of missing essential details, which is factored into other dimensions.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description omits return values, prerequisites, and behavioral effects. It only states the action, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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?

The single required parameter schedule_id is not explained at all. The description never mentions how to obtain or format the ID. With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but does not.

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 'Resume' with a resource 'schedule' and the condition 'paused', clearly stating what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like schedule_trigger or schedule_pause beyond the verb and paused-state condition.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention schedule_trigger as an alternative for starting a schedule or explain what happens if the schedule is not paused. The only context is the implicit 'paused' prerequisite.

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