Resume Luca for a lead

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: auto-send may send without review, skipped conversations report skippedReason, and resuming a non-paused lead still succeeds. It also discloses required scopes, idempotency behavior, destructive side effects, and the mandatory confirm flag.

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 behavioral summary is front-loaded and useful. The description is somewhat long because it includes endpoint, scope, sensitivity, idempotency, destructive-action, and workspace-override metadata, but each block is structured and relevant.

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 destructive mutation tool, it covers the key operational facts an agent needs: required confirm, idempotency key, workspace override, auto-send risk, skip conditions, and non-paused resume behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the description.

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 description coverage is high at 80%, and the description mostly repeats schema-provided meanings for confirm, idempotencyKey, workspaceId, and workspaceSlug. It adds little parameter-level detail beyond identifying the lead path and noting safe retry behavior.

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?

States a specific action and resource: clearing a lead's drafting pause and having Luca draft a reply over each conversation's unanswered messages. This clearly distinguishes it from nearby tools such as luca_leads_drafting_pause and luca_leads_draft.

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?

Explains the operational context well: it applies to paused leads, can auto-send when channel auto-send is enabled, and skips conversations where the coach already replied or the messaging window closed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like luca_leads_draft or review-queue drafting tools, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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