resume_breakpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that edits apply to the paused phase, but says nothing about consequences of abort (whether the flow is dropped or errored) or whether the call blocks until the flow resumes.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action set front-loaded and the phase constraint immediately after. Nothing is padded.

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 destructive-only, 8-parameter mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description is thin. The biggest ambiguity is interaction between action and edit fields: must action=modify be set for url/body to apply, or are edits honored with action=continue? That is not resolved anywhere.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is near 3, and the description genuinely adds meaning: 'edits apply to the paused phase (request or response)' explains why url/method are request-phase only and status is response-phase only. It still doesn't state what happens if phase-inappropriate fields are supplied.

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 clear verb set (continue, edit/modify, abort) against a specific resource (a flow paused by your breakpoint), so the agent knows exactly what the tool acts on. It signals the breakpoint workflow implicitly but never names sibling tools like set_breakpoint or wait_for_breakpoint to differentiate itself.

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 three action values are described in prose, and the note that edits apply to the paused phase gives some usage context. However, it never says when to use this versus wait_for_breakpoint, or what preconditions exist (e.g., a breakpoint must be currently paused), leaving the selection logic implicit.

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