resume_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a state transition (paused → running) but says nothing about failure behavior when the job isn't paused, whether execution resumes from where it stopped or restarts, idempotency, or required permissions for a mutation tool.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight elaboration.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter needs far more than a four-word sentence. Missing: return value behavior, error conditions, and the meaning of 'id'.

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% and the description never mentions the single 'id' parameter, leaving it unstated whether it is a job ID, execution ID, or name. With one required param and no schema documentation, the description should have clarified the identifier type.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Resume a paused job' tells the agent exactly what operation is performed and on what state. It doesn't distinguish itself from the obvious sibling pause_job beyond the name, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to call this versus pause_job or replay_execution, and no stated preconditions beyond the incidental word 'paused'. The agent must infer that the job must currently be in a paused state and that resuming differs from replaying an execution.

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