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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: billing semantics (verified stories not rebuilt or billed again, resumed stories billed once on first verification), a hard limit of 2 resumes then RESUME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED, inherited throttle/plan cap/allowance rules, and failure context passed to each resumed story. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Purpose and origin are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by behavior, constraints, and error condition in tight sentences. Every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information with no filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior end to end, which it does: preconditions, billing, limits, error code, and a progress-tracking sibling. An agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 0% and the single required batchId has no description, so the schema contributes nothing. The description implies batchId identifies the finished run ('resume a finished Ship run ... in the same run') but adds no format or sourcing detail. It partially compensates but not fully.

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?

States a specific verb (resume/re-dispatch) and resource (a finished Ship run started with build_from_spec) and scopes it to stories that did not verify. An agent can distinguish this from retry_build or continue_build based on the description alone.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition — the run ended incomplete or nothing_delivered — and notes the no-op case when nothing is left to do, plus 'Track progress with get_batch.' It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named continue_build or retry_build siblings, leaving a routing gap.

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