continue_as_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions preserving history link, but omits important details such as whether pending activities are affected, whether the restart is immediate, or what happens to the original workflow instance. Minimal behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It is efficient but could benefit from a slightly more structured presentation of behavior and usage.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or expected behavior after the signal is sent. Adequate for a simple signaling tool but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, making it adequate but not enhanced. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 signals a workflow to continue as new, restarting with new inputs while preserving history link. It distinguishes from sibling tools like signal_workflow by specifying the continue-as-new pattern, but could be more explicit about when to use this versus other workflow manipulation 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like signal_workflow or cancel_workflow. It only states what the tool does, lacking context about prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions.

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