continuum_compensate_action

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that this mutates action state to COMPENSATED and must be called post-hoc, after the reversal, not before. It stops short of saying what happens on a duplicate call or whether the transition is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences with the core verb first, the operational trigger second, and the resulting state third. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 output schema means return values need not be described, and the state transition is covered. But for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, leaving by and note entirely unexplained is a real gap an agent could trip over.

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% and the description explains none of the four parameters. An agent must infer that 'the action' is identified by action_key and the side effect by run_id, and gets no clue about what 'by' (actor) or 'note' are for.

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 verb and resource: recording that a completed side effect was undone, and marking the action as COMPENSATED. It implicitly separates itself from continuum_complete_action and continuum_fail_action by insisting the compensating work has already been executed, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Call this after executing a compensating action' gives a clear trigger condition tied to ordering in the workflow. It does not state when NOT to use it or name continuum_reconcile_action / continuum_complete_action as the alternatives an agent should prefer in other cases.

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