services_resume

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the raw endpoint: no explanation of what resuming entails for the service, whether the action is instantly applied, or why a resume is flagged destructive. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 lines, no filler, with the action front-loaded before the endpoint detail. Slightly redundant since the verb is repeated in the path, but nothing is wasted.

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-changing tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the definition gives the core action plus the exact endpoint, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing are preconditions and outcome, but those are secondary given the annotation coverage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the bare {"id": number} leaves the parameter undocumented. The path template POST /services/{id}/ctl/resume does clarify that id is a service identifier placed in the URL path, which is real meaning beyond the schema. It stops short of stating accepted formats or where the id comes from (e.g., services_get_list).

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 names a specific verb (resume) and resource (service) and grounds it in the underlying endpoint POST /services/{id}/ctl/resume, so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not distinguish this from neighbors like services_enter_rescue_mode or services_goto, which also change service state, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the service must be suspended/stopped), and no statement of what conditions make the call fail. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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