continue_job

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: that processing costs additional credits, the new_limit must exceed the previous, and it defaults to plan maximum. It does not mention potential side effects like job state changes or asynchronous behavior, but the core behavioral aspects are covered.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides necessary context without redundancy. No fluff.

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 the tool's complexity and absence of annotations, the description adequately covers preconditions, usage constraints, and cost implications. An output schema exists (not shown) likely covering return values. Minor omission: it doesn't specify whether the continuation appends or restarts processing, but overall it's complete enough.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that new_limit must be greater than the previous limit and that omitting it defaults to plan maximum. It also reinforces that the job must have been submitted with a limit, which is not captured in the schema.

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's purpose: 'Expand a job by processing more records beyond the initial limit.' It uses a specific verb ('expand') and resource ('job'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it applies only to jobs originally submitted with a limit.

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 states when to use the tool ('Only use this when the user wants MORE data processed') and provides a clear exclusion: 'This only applies to jobs originally submitted with `limit`. If a job was submitted without `limit`, there is nothing to continue.' It does not name alternatives but the context is clear.

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