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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely drops it. It does not say whether jumping mutates checklist state, whether it discards in-progress work, what the assistant's execution context does mid-step, or what happens on failure — details that matter for a control-flow tool like this.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine, but here brevity comes at the cost of the missing targeting and side-effect information rather than being earned economy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a third of parameters documented, the description needed to explain targeting and state effects. It does not, so an agent cannot confidently call this tool against a 30+ tool sibling set.

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?

Only 33% of parameters are described, and the one documented parameter is the least important (notification_message). objectiveId and captureJobId are undocumented in both schema and description, and critically the description implies a target "step" but no parameter identifies a step, leaving the core invocation ambiguous.

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?

"Jump assistant to a checklist step" gives a verb and a resource, which is better than a bare name restatement, but the object of the jump is undefined — the parameters are captureJobId and objectiveId, neither of which names a step. The parenthetical "(alias resume_assistant)" is ambiguous when resume_assistant also exists as a sibling, and the description never distinguishes this from select_capture_step.

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 statement of when to use this versus resume_assistant (which it claims to alias) or select_capture_step, and no prerequisites. Calling this an alias of a sibling that still exists leaves the agent unable to choose between them.

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