linkfetch_safety_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well: it names the trigger error (challenge_unresolved), the user-confirmation precondition, and a rate/pause constraint. It doesn't state what the call mutates or returns, but the operational warnings are meaningful.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and trigger, then the precondition, then the constraint. No waste.

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 resume tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the trigger, precondition, and lingering pause constraint needed to invoke correctly. Minor gap: no indication of what success looks like or side effects.

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 coverage is 100% with a single self-documented account_urn parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 action (confirm/resume the safety flow) and the triggering condition (challenge_unresolved error), distinguishing it from generic siblings like safety_status and safety_limits. The verb 'Confirm' vs the name 'resume' is slightly ambiguous but the intent is clear.

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?

Explicit when-to-call guidance: 'Only call after the user says they did it,' plus the constraint that any time-based pause still applies. This tells the agent both the precondition and the continuing restriction, leaving little to inference.

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