Continue a delegated conversation

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that resuming replays the whole conversation as input tokens and notes cost implications, and clearly states that a new job_id is returned while session_id stays constant. This is transparent behavioral info beyond the basic function.

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: a few sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and identification methods. Every sentence adds value (usage guidance, cost note, return behavior). No fluff.

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 tool has 7 params, no required, no output schema, no annotations. The description covers the key behaviors (return values, cost, when to use). It doesn't describe error cases or all parameter nuances, but it handles the most important aspects. Slightly better than average for a delegation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how job_id vs session_id identify the session (any turn or session_id), and advises using prompt_file for long prompts讷. It also implies that wait_seconds and permission_mode are per-turn overrides, though not explicit. Slightly above baseline.

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's purpose: 'Send another message to an existing delegated session, resuming its full conversation history.' It uses a specific verb (send) and resource (delegated session), and differentiates from siblings like delegate_start by focusing on continuation rather than initiation.

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 it: 'Send another message to an existing delegated session' and 'Only continue conversations the user asked you to start,' which sets a clear usage boundary. It also explains the alternative of starting fresh (and cost trade-offs), and mentions using prompt_file for long prompts, giving practical guidance.

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