Resume work item

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, etc.), the description discloses that success mutates the item by stamping session id/timestamp, that output is silent, and that the operation fails if the item is not in progress. These are behavioral facts the annotations do not convey. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Every clause contributes: the ownership behavior, the success effect and silent output, the refusal condition, and the key alternatives. It is compact yet information-dense, with the central action front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers success behavior, output, failure condition, and how it relates to adjacent operations. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents the sole parameter id with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed because the schema fully explains the required input. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a precise verb phrase, 'Adopt this session's token on a progress work item, taking ownership of it', which makes the action concrete and distinguishes resume from generic resume/continue semantics. It also explicitly names handoff and revert as different operations, reinforcing sibling differentiation.

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 precondition ('Refuses when the item is not in progress') and contrasts the tool with handoff (ownership to another session) and revert (drop claim and return to ready). This is explicit enough for an agent to decide whether resume is the right tool.

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