orchestrate_continue_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the fallback behavior on leaf failure and that state/run_id are passed, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., persistent mutations), required permissions, or response characteristics. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence captures the primary purpose and key inputs, and the second adds critical failure behavior. Information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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?

Given 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits details about return values, full state structure, and parameters like stage_id, auto_local, and result_text, which are essential for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains only 3 of 7 parameters (run_id, state, success) by mentioning them in context. Missing explanations for error, stage_id, auto_local, and result_text leave significant gaps for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool advances a run after a leaf tool result, specifying the core action (advance) and resource (run). It distinguishes from siblings like 'orchestrate_start_run' (starting) and 'orchestrate_get_run' (querying) by focusing on post-leaf continuation.

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 explicitly says when to use: after a leaf tool result. It also provides guidance on failure handling by instructing to set success=false to trigger fallback_tools with a specific chain. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare with alternative siblings like 'orchestrate_fallback_chains'.

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