Resume check

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

It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the state change to 'new', the waiting-for-next-ping effect, and the 409 failure condition. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the failure condition is stated immediately after, making efficient use of the description space.

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 single-parameter state-transition tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the action, the resulting state, and the key error condition. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 check parameter is already well documented, including the read-only key caveat. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair ('resumes a paused check') and clearly defines the state transition to 'new'. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like pause_check and update_check.

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 description makes the precondition explicit by stating it fails with HTTP 409 if the check is not paused, which effectively tells the agent when not to use it. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the context strongly implies its role relative to pause_check.

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