prufa_resume_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys useful behavior: immediate execution of the next scheduled run, return to normal cadence, and idempotency. However, it omits potential error cases (e.g., if monitor is not paused), authentication requirements, or side effects beyond resumption. Partial transparency.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences front-loading the action and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value: the action, the immediate execution effect, and idempotency. No wasted words, making it efficient for an AI agent to process.

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 simple resume operation, the description covers the core action and key behavioral trait (immediate execution). However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., state when already running), potential errors, return value (no output schema), and the role of the idempotency_key parameter. Adequate but not fully complete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (monitor_id required, idempotency_key optional) with 50% schema description coverage (idempotency_key has a description in schema, but monitor_id does not). The description adds no parameter-level information, failing to compensate for the missing schema description of monitor_id. An agent must infer its purpose from context.

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 tool's action: 'Resume a paused monitor.' It specifies the effect ('The next scheduled run fires immediately, then it returns to its cadence'), making the purpose unambiguous. The verb 'Resume' and resource 'monitor' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like prufa_pause_monitor and prufa_start_monitor by explicitly targeting a paused state.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., monitor must be paused), nor does it exclude scenarios (e.g., if monitor is already running). No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information is provided.

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