continue_action

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 usefully discloses that the subject returned by weekly_report is a server auto-advanced default and usually need not be resubmitted, which is real behavioral context. But it says nothing about confirmation types, permissions, or the consequences of submitting the resume path.

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?

Front-loads the two purposes, then follows with the weekly_report format detail and the subject note. Content is dense but each sentence carries information; minor redundancy in re-explaining the subject.

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 described. For a 2-param tool with a nested object at 0% schema coverage, the weekly_report selections are well covered but resume_token and the confirmation-type selections are left undefined, so an agent cannot fully call the resume path with confidence.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does document the selections structure in detail (changes with short id/text, optional subject, worked example), but resume_token — the central parameter for a resume tool — is never explained beyond the implied 'resume' sense.

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?

States a specific dual purpose: resume people/mail/time confirmations, or submit weekly_report modifications. The verb+resource is clear and it distinguishes the weekly_report path from the sibling of the same name. It stops short of explaining how the two modes relate.

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?

Gives concrete guidance for the weekly_report path (selections supports only changes and optional subject, with an id/text example). However it offers no when-to-use guidance for the resume path — it never says how a resume_token arises or what condition should lead an agent here instead of a sibling.

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