veto_continue

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a state-mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it returns full context, summary, and next action, and notes that nothing needs re-explaining. It does not explicitly state what gets mutated (e.g., active_client), but the schema covers that. No contradiction.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the trigger and usage constraints. The text is efficient overall, though the final sentence 'Nothing needs to be re-explained' is somewhat redundant with the earlier claim that Veto returns the full context. Still, it earns its place by reinforcing the value proposition.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what the tool returns (full context, summary, next action). Annotations cover safety. The definition gives enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps: it doesn't specify behavior when no saved session exists, and doesn't distinguish from veto_session_restore.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions using the session_id but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 verb and resource: 'Restores a saved session on any platform.' This is clear, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool veto_session_restore, which likely has overlapping purpose. The trigger description helps an agent know when to call, but sibling distinction is missing.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger: when the user types `veto_continue` or asks to resume/continue/restore a session. It also says when to call (immediately after switching platforms) and what not to do (don't treat as a manual task, don't read ~/.veto/veto.db). However, it does not name alternative MCP tools as a comparison, so it falls short of a 5.

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