resume_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that pause causes (hostiles, hp) are taken as seen so only a new cause re-pauses, that every step is re-checked against the board, and that already-completed steps are not re-issued. That is meaningful non-obvious behavior beyond the schema.

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 primary action is front-loaded, followed by behavior and then the alternative tool, so it is well-ordered. It is somewhat longer and more colloquial than needed ('the hostiles in sight, the hp now'), but nearly every clause conveys distinct behavior.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral contract (pause semantics, idempotent step re-checking, alternative tool). The remaining gap is the undocumented order_id, which is the one thing an agent must supply correctly.

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 0% and the single parameter (order_id) is never described in the description either, so there is no guidance on where the ID comes from (e.g., the orders tool) or its expected format. The description's use of 'order' gives only implicit context and does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb and resource ('Hand a paused order its unit back and run it now') and immediately clarifies the active-order case in parentheses. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like give_order, cancel_order, and orders without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: 'To change the plan instead, give_order with replace_id.' It also states the condition distinguishing resume from give_order (resuming keeps the existing plan; give_order with replace_id changes it), leaving nothing to inference.

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