vela_resume_workflow

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

Annotations indicate a mutation operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destructive effects. Description adds that it is commonly used after manual approval, but does not detail preconditions or side effects if workflow is not suspended. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first gives purpose and context, second provides API endpoint. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Description covers purpose and common use case, output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Only missing potential prerequisite info (e.g., workflow must be suspended), but overall adequate.

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 already provides clear descriptions for each parameter (step, record, app_name, workflow_name). Description does not add new parameter insights; it only reiterates the general purpose. Adequate baseline given schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('resume'), resource ('suspended workflows'), and common use case (after manual approval). It distinguishes from sibling tools like terminate_workflow and deploy_application by focusing on resumption.

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?

Description implies usage context ('常用于人工审批后继续发布') but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Provides a specific scenario without exclusions.

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