unpause_dag

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

Annotations cover key aspects (modification, idempotency, non-destructive). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond implying state change. It fails to explain what 'resume' means operationally (e.g., enabling scheduling, affecting next run). Adequate but minimal.

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 (single sentence) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail for pure brevity. Still, it avoids 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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description still lacks completeness. It does not clarify the scope of 'resume' (e.g., does it only unpause or also trigger a run?), error handling, or prerequisites. The agent is left to guess operational semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description does not mention the 'dag_id' parameter or its format. The description adds no value beyond the schema's structural definition, leaving the agent with no guidance on what to pass.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Resume' (synonymous with unpause) and clearly identifies the resource as a DAG. It directly contrasts with sibling tool 'pause_dag' and avoids ambiguity with 'trigger_dag_run'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a DAG is already running vs paused), no prerequisites, and no mention of error scenarios or idempotency implications. The description is purely functional.

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