保存额度续跑策略

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

Annotations already convey idempotence, non-read-only status, and non-destructiveness. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: this action does not itself create a Codex scheduled task. However, it does not disclose overwrite/merge semantics or how this policy interacts with policy state.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the core action and appends only a meaningful clarification about not creating a scheduled task. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with six required parameters, no output schema, and no per-parameter documentation, the description is under-specified. It behave the meanings of safetyDelaySeconds, continueUntilComplete, and maxCycles unresolved, and provides little contextual guidance for an agent deciding how to construct a valid call.

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 provides no explanation for any of the six required parameters. Fields like continueUntilComplete, safetyDelaySeconds, and maxCycles are left to be interpreted purely from their names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Description gives a specific action — save or update a quota resume policy — and clearly identifies the resource. It also adds a useful clarification that this operation does not create a Codex scheduled task, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling policy-state or prewarm tools.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like quota_resumer_set_policy_state or quota_resumer_upsert_prewarm. The only routing hint is the negative statement about not creating a Codex scheduled task; otherwise the intended usage must be inferred from the tool name.

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