resume_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly explains that the tool reruns the failed step, optionally injects fix_steps before it, and continues remaining steps from the original batch. It does not discuss side effects or edge cases like repeated failures, but the core execution behavior is transparent.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a numbered list to clarify the exact order of operations. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 description provides the essential precondition, the execution sequence, and the optional fix-step mechanism. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required, and the parameter schema covers format specifics. It could be slightly more explicit about not using this tool for non-failed batches, but the current framing is sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds workflow context around 'fix_steps' and the failure-point relationship, but does not meaningfully expand on parameter formats or defaults beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb ('resume') with a clear resource ('a failed batch'), and precisely states the behavior: re-run the failed step and continue remaining steps. It clearly differentiates itself from execute_batch by describing the failure-point continuation workflow rather than initial execution.

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 a specific trigger condition: 'After execute_batch returns status=FAIL with a batch_id, call this to...' This is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the failure condition and step-by-step follow-up make the usage context unambiguous.

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