resume_generation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that resumption happens 'from verified outputs,' which is useful and distinguishes it from a full restart, but it omits whether the operation is mutating, idempotent, costly, permission-gated, or what happens if the job is not resumable.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere, but the sentence itself is efficient and easy to parse.

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 job-control operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is thin. It leaves out prerequisites, how to discover a resumable job_id, expected outcomes, and failure behavior.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what job_id is, where to obtain it, or what format it takes. It only implies that a job identifier is needed, adding little beyond the bare schema field name.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Resume ... job') and narrows the scope to interrupted or repairable failed jobs, so an agent can distinguish it from generic retry/stage-repair siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool, keeping it below a 5.

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 'interrupted or repairable failed job,' which gives a condition for use. However, it does not state when not to use it, how it differs from retry_asset_stage or create_shape_repair_attempt, or what makes a job 'repairable' versus simply failed.

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