resume_sensor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context via '[WRITE][risk=medium]' and states the state-changing action. It does not disclose what happens if the object is already running, whether permission is required, or what side effects resuming may have on monitoring.

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 entry is compact and front-loaded with action and risk markers. The Args section maps cleanly to the input schema with no redundant prose or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the inverse sibling relationship, and parameter meaning. Minor gaps include success/error return behavior and what the default target is, but these are not essential for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description fully documents both parameters: object_id is the PRTG object to resume, and target is the monitoring target name with omit-for-default semantics. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare type and title fields.

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 clear action: 'Resume a paused PRTG object', and immediately identifies this as the inverse of pause_sensor. This makes the tool's purpose and its distinction from the most relevant sibling explicit.

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 names pause_sensor as the counterpart operation, implying when this tool should be used. It also gives usage direction for target with 'omit for the default'. However, it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool beyond the inverse relationship.

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