mission_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one meaningful behavior—state reconciliation—but does not say whether this mutates data, what gets overwritten, or what preconditions must hold. This is a notable gap for a resume operation.

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 a single sentence that leads with the core action and appends a meaningful clause. There is no filler, and every phrase earns its place.

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 output schema covers return-value expectations, but with no annotations and a large sibling set, the description should provide more context on side effects and preconditions. The purpose and target state are clear, yet the behavioral gaps prevent a higher score.

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 does not explain the required mission_id or the optional repo parameter. It only alludes to 'repository... state' indirectly, leaving an agent to infer parameter meaning from names alone.

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,' against a specific resource, 'paused/blocked mission,' and adds a distinguishing mechanism: 'reconciling repository and worker state.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like mission_run or mission_retry_feature, even without naming them.

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 phrase 'paused/blocked mission' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools, so the guidance stops short of full routing instructions.

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