veto_continue

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool modifies state but is not destructive. The description adds that it returns 'full context, summary, and next action' and should be called after platform switch, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Single focused paragraph front-loaded with purpose and followed by trigger conditions and prohibitions. Information-dense but not excessively long; a bit wordy but still efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, trigger, prohibited actions, return value (though no output schema), and platform-switching context. Missing prerequisite that the session must have been saved previously, but overall adequate for an optional-parameter 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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema (session_id from veto_handoff, resuming_as records active client). The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Restores a saved session on any platform' with a specific verb and resource. Mentions trigger conditions, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling veto_session_restore, which may have similar functionality.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (trigger conditions: user types 'veto_continue' or asks to resume/continue/restore), what not to do (do not treat as a task, never read the database or reconstruct session), and procedural context (call immediately after switching platforms). This provides clear guidance.

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