Continue a delegated conversation

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

The description explains that a new job_id is returned for this turn while the session_id remains the same, enabling back-and-forth interaction. Without annotations, the description carries the burden; it could mention any blocking behavior or side effects, but the transparency is strong.

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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Given the 7 parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the essential behavior and identification methods. It could be more complete by noting the default behavior for optional parameters like max_turns or wait_seconds, but is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions job_id and session_id as alternatives for identification but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema for other parameters. It doesn't go beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool sends another message to an existing delegated session, resuming conversation history. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delegate_start by focusing on continuation, and the title reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (continue a delegated conversation) and includes exclusion guidance: 'Only continue conversations the user asked you to start.' This clearly differentiates from delegate_start and sets a boundary.

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