dsh_continue

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

Although annotations provide no safety hints and idempotentHint=false, the description exposes non-obvious behavior: model routing is catalog-validated and re-read before the prompt, failure may skip the prompt but can still persist a selectModel global default, and 'the write is never automatically retried.' This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 dense but not bloated; every sentence contributes meaningful guidance. It front-loads purpose and task-id safety rules, then details routing and retry semantics. Minor structural improvement would be grouping routing caveats more cleanly, but the overall length is appropriate.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of the tool, the description covers critical fallback behavior and model-routing pitfalls. It is not fully complete because it omits the meaning of sinceCursor/expectedRevision and any return-value guidance, which would matter to an agent trying to verify the tool's result.

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 only 38%, and the description valuably annotates mode, model routing, and the task-id rule. However, key parameters such as sinceCursor and expectedRevision are never mentioned, and prompt is only implicit. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves important gaps.

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 opens with 'Compatibility alias for dsh_followup' and specifies the exact operation: 'Continue the same known BridgeTask and root DSH session.' It also distinguishes this tool from creating another delegation, so an agent can clearly recognize its role relative to siblings like dsh_delegate.

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 gives explicit decision rules: use this when a matching task id is known, and 'start a fresh delegation when no matching task id is known.' It also clarifies mode boundaries ('queue targets the next turn; steer targets the active turn's next step'), which is strong guidance for correct invocation.

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