resume_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether resuming is idempotent, what happens if the referenced task was never interrupted or already completed, whether it blocks, or what state mutation it performs. Only the phrase 'saved stages' hints at how resumption works.

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?

One focused sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('interrupted') is front-loaded after the verb. It is short without being cryptic, though it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool.

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 state-mutating workflow control tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented identifier parameter, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot tell what happens on success, what errors arise for a non-interrupted request_id, or how this differs from the other task-lifecycle tools.

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 parameter request_id has no description anywhere. The description never explains what a request_id is, how to obtain it (presumably from a prior task or get_task_status), or whether it must reference an interrupted task specifically.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Resume an interrupted ... task', scoped to composition, quality and generation work, which is more specific than a bare name restatement. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_task_status or cancel_task, which operate on the same task lifecycle, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 word 'interrupted' implies the precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives like get_task_status (check progress) or cancel_task (abandon). With numerous task/scene siblings, this leaves the routing decision to guesswork.

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