resume_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the decision payload is a passthrough and that validation occurs server-side, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what side effects occur beyond resuming.

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, front-loaded with purpose and version, followed by a behavioral note. Every sentence is meaningful; no verbosity or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains action and payload, but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., status, workflow result) or any prerequisites (e.g., workflow must exist and be paused). It's slightly incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the outcome.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that 'decision' is a passthrough and server-validated, which goes beyond the schema's 'HITL decision payload'. For job_id, no additional detail, but overall adds meaning.

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 clearly states the verb ('Resume'), resource ('paused human-in-the-loop workflow'), and includes a version context. It distinguishes itself from sibling workflow tools like 'run_workflow' or 'stop_workflow' by specifying the target state (paused) and the required payload (decision).

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 implies usage when a workflow is paused and needs a decision, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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