resume_after_takeover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it explains that release flows through the consent channel, that it still succeeds on clients without elicitation, and that such releases are recorded as the model's own assertion (consent_channel=legacy in the audit). That is meaningful beyond-schema behavioral context. It does not state what happens on failure or whether the lock state is verified.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. The second paragraph is dense and jargon-laden (elicitation, consent_channel=legacy, audit), and while it conveys the key caveat, it reads as implementation commentary rather than guidance for invocation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the behavioral caveats are covered. The gaps are the undocumented reason parameter and the absence of explicit routing against request_takeover, leaving the agent to infer the full call contract.

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?

There is one parameter (reason) with 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no guidance on what to pass. With a real parameter present, the 0-param baseline of 4 does not apply, and the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 names a specific action (resume agent control) and the triggering condition (after the user has handed the session back), which clearly separates it from the sibling request_takeover. It never names that sibling explicitly, but the state-based framing makes the distinction legible.

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?

Usage is implied by the condition 'after the user has handed the session back,' which is a workable trigger. However, it never states when NOT to call it, nor points to request_takeover or ask_user_to_do as alternatives when the session has not been handed back.

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