continue_as_new

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

With no annotations, description carries burden. It discloses that the signal must be handled by the workflow and that history is preserved. However, it does not mention destructiveness (current execution ends), auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence, 15 words, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, description explains the restart behavior and signal requirement. Parameter count is low and all are described. Some missing details like return value, but acceptable for the complexity.

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 100%, baseline 3. Description adds context for signal_name (must be handled by workflow) but adds little beyond schema for other parameters. No significant extra meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the action (signal), resource (workflow), and effect (restart with new inputs while preserving history link). It differentiates from a regular restart but not explicitly from sibling tools like signal_workflow or start_workflow.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like signal_workflow or start_workflow. The description implies a specific use case but does not provide explicit when/when-not or alternative references.

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