resume_site

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

The description adds that the tool acts on a 'suspended site', which clarifies the state transition. However, beyond what annotations already indicate (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or specific behavioral traits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds only limited context.

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 at one sentence with no fluff. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., mentioning that the site must be currently suspended), but it is efficient and front-loaded. The brevity is appropriate for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and only two parameters, the description provides basic context but omits crucial details such as that the site must already be suspended, what happens if it is not, or the return value. It is minimally complete for a straightforward action, but there is room for improvement.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types defined in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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' and the resource 'suspended site', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'suspend_site' and 'delete_site'. It is not a tautology and immediately conveys the tool's function.

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 the tool should be used when a site is suspended and needs to be unsuspended, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'suspend_site' is the inverse) nor any prerequisites or error conditions. It provides minimal guidance.

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