resume_carrier_subscriber

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool is not testable against live hardware, lists the full guard sequence (read-before, no-op condition, confirm=true, write kill-switch, read-after), and explains the confirm and key_label behaviors. This is far beyond the minimum required.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose with endpoint, a caveat about testing, a compact guarded list, and parameter explanations. Each sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition beyond the intentional 'Guarded.' as a header.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description is complete for correct invocation. It covers all parameters, the required confirm flag, the no-op state, and operational guardrails. The only omission—auth requirements—is not expected to be in a tool description and is mitigated by the listed guards.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully: subscriber_id is defined as 'the subscriber UUID from list_carrier_subscribers', confirm is explained as 'must be true to apply the change', and key_label is described as 'optional configured API-key label to route on a specific key'. This adds significant meaning beyond raw types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Resume a suspended subscriber's service', a specific verb-resource pair, and reinforces it with the endpoint 'POST .../subscribers/{id}/resume'. It also adds the state condition 'no-op when not currently suspended', which distinguishes it from suspend and clarifies its exact scope.

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?

Usage context is explicit: it applies to suspended subscribers, and the description notes it is a no-op otherwise. It tells the agent where to obtain subscriber_id (from list_carrier_subscribers), that confirm must be true to apply, and that key_label is optional. Although it doesn't name an alternative like suspend_carrier_subscriber, the inverse relationship is clear from the verb and the suspended-state condition.

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