Continue a ZCode task with master feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably: it discloses side effects (attempt increment, evidence preservation), an authority rule (a ZCode-flagged decision is never auto-approved and requires a master follow-up instruction), and critically redefines status 'completed' as invocation/report completion rather than work acceptance. It also instructs independent review of the diff and checks.

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 dense but front-loaded, leading with the core action and mechanics before the caveats. Every sentence carries a distinct obligation (mechanics, preconditions, auto-approval rule, status semantics), though the status-semantics passage is on the longer side.

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 documented, and the description still adds the essential status-semantics caveat that the schema cannot express. Preconditions and authority handling are covered; only the third parameter remains unexplained.

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 0% for all 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It conveys that task_id is the reused identifier and feedback is the master's follow-up instruction, but additional_requirements is neither described nor hinted at, leaving one parameter fully undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('continue a finished task') and enumerates the concrete mechanics that define this operation: reuse of task ID and workspace, attempt increment, and evidence preservation. This clearly distinguishes it from zcode_task (starting new work) without needing to name the sibling.

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?

It states the precise precondition set — allowed from completed, failed, or waiting_for_master — which tells the agent exactly when invocation is legal. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the disallowed cases (e.g., what to call when a task is still running), so it is strong context without full when-not routing.

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