fetch_continue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action and optional modifications but does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if the request is not paused, whether modifications are merged or replaced, side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and optional parameters. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is minimally complete for a simple continuation tool, but it lacks workflow context (e.g., needing a paused request from fetch_enable or fetch_list_paused) and behavioral details. Without annotations or output schema, an agent may need to rely on sibling tool names or the schema to fully understand usage, leaving clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the context of 'paused request' and 'optionally', but it does not provide meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already say 'Override URL', etc. The description paraphrases the schema without adding new details.

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 'Continue' with a clear resource 'a paused request' and explicitly lists optional modifications (URL, method, headers, body). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_fulfill and fetch_fail, which handle paused requests differently.

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 description implies usage for resuming a paused request with optional overrides, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like fetch_fulfill or fetch_fail, nor does it mention prerequisites like enabling fetch interception. The context is clear but not contrasted with siblings.

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