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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only but the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond them: it is FREE, reuses the saved image, and never generates or charges for another image. It also discloses cooldown/retry behavior, which is not inferable from annotations or schema. This meaningfully informs agent expectations.

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?

Three sentences deliver a clear trigger, cost implication, and retry behavior with zero filler. The most decision-relevant fact ('FREE') is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 recovery action with no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: trigger condition, cost semantics, and cooldown/polling flow. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the response value or how to interpret success beyond polling list_character_poses.

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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It identifies that a 'failed pose' is involved but does not explain what characterId and poseId represent beyond their names, nor how to obtain valid values. The agent must infer that poseId refers to the failed pose and characterId to the owning character.

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 specific verb ('Resume') and resource ('failed pose' / 'saved pose background removal'), and adds a precise trigger condition ('when list_character_poses reports removalRecoveryAvailable'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling retry/resume tools like retry_job or resume_ui_pack_batch.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: only when list_character_poses reports removalRecoveryAvailable. It also provides operational guidance for cooldown handling and subsequent polling. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough.

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