resume_session

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

readOnlyHint=false tells the agent this mutates state, and the description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the tool refuses completed sessions and sessions held by another live agent, and it transfers ownership to the calling agent. It does not say what happens to the prior owner's context or how a refusal surfaces (error vs. message).

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the eligibility constraints immediately after. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 single-parameter, state-mutating tool with only readOnlyHint in annotations and no output schema, the description covers the eligibility rules and the ownership effect that the schema cannot express. It stops short of describing the return value or the failure mode, which would matter for a takeover operation.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage, including the "from load_context output" provenance hint. The description adds nothing further about the session_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Take over an interrupted session under this agent" is a specific verb plus resource, and the second sentence narrows the eligible state. It is clearly distinct from save_* / record_success siblings, though it does not name a sibling explicitly or tie itself to session_status or claim_area.

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 preconditions are stated: the session must be interrupted (not completed) and not held by another live agent. This gives real when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals. What is missing is a prescribed alternative — e.g., check session_status first, or use claim_area when the session is live.

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