yaaif_ambient_run_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'resume a paused ambient run' with no detail on side effects, state prerequisites (e.g., must already be paused), reversibility, or what happens if the run is not paused. For a state-changing operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single clean sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, which is appropriate, but it is too sparse to be fully useful. It scores well on conciseness but suffers from under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would have no idea what an 'ambient run' is, what run_id means, how to find it, or what the result of resuming will be. The description does not satisfy even basic context for correct invocation.

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 one parameter (run_id) with only a type ('string') and no description. The tool description provides zero explanation of what run_id refers to, how to obtain it, or its format. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 states a specific verb ('resume') and resource ('paused ambient run'), making the core action clear. It differentiates from siblings like pause, stop, approve, reject by the action itself, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yaaif_ambient_run_pause or yaaif_ambient_run_stop. The intended scenario (resuming a previously paused run) is implied by the name but not stated explicitly, and no prerequisites or preconditions are mentioned.

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