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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: partial files are preserved, it returns a NEW task_id that must be polled instead of the original, and it spells out retry limits and non-transient errors never to retry. This is exactly the kind of context the annotations don't capture.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then adds usage conditions and retry budget. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor deduction is that the retry details could be structured as a list for faster scanning, but it's not bloated.

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 tool with this complexity—retry logic, error-specific rules, and a returned new task id—the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, what to expect, and how to follow up. The presence of an output schema and complete parameter coverage means no critical information is missing.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds little beyond what the schema states—it does tie task_id to the failed task from create_app/modify_app, but that's already in the schema description. No additional parameter-specific semantics are needed.

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 tool resumes a failed or stalled create/modify task, preserving partial files. It explicitly contrasts with starting a brand-new create_app, which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

It provides an explicit trigger condition ('when check_task reports failed'), names the alternative not to use (create_app), and gives a retry budget with specific error categories and a hard stop rule. This gives the agent unambiguous decision criteria.

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