Resume the build queue

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is admin-only, enqueued pipelines start immediately, and the user should expect a burst of activity. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint 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 short sentences carry all the essential information with no filler. The key action and immediate consequence are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the authorization requirement, and the operational consequence. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter information the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool 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 states a specific action: the server resumes handing work to agents, meaning queued pipelines will be processed. It clearly identifies the resource (the build queue) and the effect, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling pause_queue.

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?

It provides an important usage restriction ('Admin only') and describes the immediate effect ('Queued pipelines start at once, so expect a burst'). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like pause_queue or trigger_pipeline, leaving some inference to the agent.

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