set_resume_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is an overwrite of a single pinned block, that this context is read first on restart, and that author_kind should be 'human' only when relaying user words. It stops short of detailing edge cases (e.g., missing task), but the core behavior is transparent.

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 entire description is two sentences. The first covers purpose and content; the second provides timing and parameter conventions. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple setter with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the vital aspects: what the tool does, what the context contains, when to invoke it, and how to set author_kind. It lacks only minor edge-case information, but is otherwise complete for an agent to use confidently.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes above by specifying the intended content of the context string (state/next/look) and giving a concrete rule for author_kind ('human' only when relaying user words; default 'ai'). This adds practical semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Set (overwrite) the task's resume context'. It then clarifies exactly what that context contains (current state, done, next, where to look) and distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining the cold-restart read behavior. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's unique function.

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?

Explicit timing guidance is given: 'Update it at the end of a work session' and the tool is described as the first thing read on cold restart, which anchors its role in the workflow. It doesn't name specific sibling alternatives, but the dedicated purpose is so clear that the usage context is effectively established.

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