resume_keyword

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that spending restarts only once Apple applies the command, and that it is preview-gated. The financial side effect is disclosed, which is more than the annotations provide.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'PREVIEW ONLY' warning before the mechanics and the approval requirement. Every sentence carries weight, though the approval sentence slightly overlaps the preview framing.

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 mutation with financial impact, the description adequately covers the preview gate, the spend-restart behavior, and the approval requirement, and annotations cover the safety profile. The gap is the total absence of parameter semantics, which matters given 0% schema coverage.

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 description never mentions campaignId or keywordId. With two required parameters that are undocumented in both the schema and the description, an agent gets no guidance on what identifies the target.

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+resource ('resume a paused Apple Ads keyword') with an explicit precondition (paused) and platform (Apple Ads). It stands clearly apart from the sibling pause_keyword, though it doesn't name alternatives. The purpose is stated precisely but sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

It asserts a usage constraint ('Apply only with the user's explicit approval') and marks itself 'PREVIEW ONLY', which hints at a confirmation flow. However, it never names the confirm_action sibling or explains how the preview/apply handshake works, leaving the actual when-to-invoke path implied.

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