resume_pending_dispatch

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing idempotency (safe to call repeatedly) and exactly what side effects will not recur (never re-submits or re-commits Context). That is precisely the reassurance needed for a non-destructive state-changing recovery tool, and it does not contradict 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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: what it repairs, exactly when to call it versus the alternative, and its safety contract. The verb and precondition are front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 recovery tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the detection signal, the forbidden alternative, the interruption causes, and idempotency. Nothing required to decide or safely invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with project_id explained as the id returned by list_projects and task_id as an optional scoping argument, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds trigger-state context but no additional syntax, defaults, or scope behavior for task_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 scope: finishing an advance_project round interrupted after Context was committed but before the next role was confirmed dispatched. It names the exact sibling it must not be confused with (advance_project with a reconstructed patch), so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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 an explicit trigger condition (get_task_status.brief.waiting_on == DISPATCH_RETRY_NEEDED, equivalently brief.pending_dispatch is not null) and an explicit exclusion with the alternative tool to avoid. It also enumerates the failure causes (crash, worker spawn failure, transient VersionConflict) that lead here.

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