continue_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure and does so well: it states the parent is never mutated, the continuation is a fresh run with continued_from, the trust gate is re-applied and defaults to read_only, failed voices are recorded rather than silently dropped, and persist/mode change durability and execution. This gives the agent a clear side-effect and safety model.

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 summary is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds a necessary behavioral or parameter detail. The prose is dense but organized by topic (job-type behavior, inheritance, trust, persistence, execution mode), so no sentence is wasted.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this is a thorough specification: it defines job_id semantics, per-kind continuation behavior, inheritance rules, failure handling, trust defaults, persistence, and async mode. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not required here, so the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, but the description compensates for the most important parameters: job_id (kept run directory), rounds (only meaningful for debate), persist (creates a durable child), mode async (background and returns job_id), and inherited overrides for model, working_dir, role, and files. A few parameters such as safety_mode, trust_workspace, and timeout_s are left to their names/defaults, so there is a minor gap.

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 action and resource: 'Continue a completed durable job with a new direction, picking up where the kept run left off.' The description then details distinct behaviors for delegate, consensus, and debate jobs, clearly positioning this as a continuation tool rather than a creation or inspection tool.

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 clearly indicates this is for continuing kept/completed jobs and explains how the tool adapts to different job types, which gives a strong sense of when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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