continuum_fail_action

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

Beyond the bare readOnlyHint=false, the description explains the real consequence of a wrong flag — treating an ambiguous outcome as failed 'could cause a duplicate' — which is exactly the behavioral risk an agent needs. It does not cover idempotency guarantees, retry behavior, or whether repeated failure reports are safe.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the decision rule, then the rationale. No filler, and the most dangerous mistake (duplicate creation) is stated last as the payoff for the rule.

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 no explanation, and the critical semantic ambiguity of 'certain' is fully resolved. What's missing is the expected content/format of 'error' and any pointer to the reconcile sibling for ambiguous cases, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 only illuminates one of four parameters ('certain', with default false), explaining it very well. run_id, action_key, and especially the free-form 'error' string get no guidance on format or content, so half the parameter surface remains 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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Report that an intercepted action failed'), making it clearly distinct from completion/compensation siblings. It does not explicitly name the counterpart tools (e.g. continuum_complete_action, continuum_reconcile_action), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance for the key decision: certain=true only when nothing happened (rejected before send), certain=false for timeouts/dropped connections. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative such as continuum_reconcile_action for ambiguous outcomes, which would have made routing explicit.

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