resume_cluster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: the operation is asynchronous ('takes several minutes'), suggests monitoring via 'DescribeCluster API', and indicates the cluster becomes accessible when 'RUNNING'. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is idempotent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose in the example. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying parameters, return values, and behavioral context, though the example could be more concise.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a fair job: it explains the parameter, return structure, and key behavioral aspects (asynchronous nature, monitoring). However, for a mutation tool with operational impact, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, and specific prerequisites, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining 'cluster_id: ID of the cluster to resume'. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, specifying what the parameter represents and its role in the operation.

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 clearly states the verb ('Resume') and resource ('a dedicated cluster in Zilliz Cloud'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'suspend_cluster' and 'describe_cluster' by specifying the resume action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential alternatives like 'create_free_cluster' in terms of when to use each.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., cluster must be suspended), when-not-to-use scenarios, or direct comparisons with sibling tools like 'suspend_cluster' or 'create_free_cluster'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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