Resume paused input operations with explicit checked continuation, supply external outcomes for uncertain effects, or clear an idle pause using empty arguments.
Explicit checked continuation. Fresh native observation follows pause cleanup. Empty arguments only clear idle pause; uncertain effects require exact external outcomes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resolution | No | ||
| operation_id | No | ||
| pause_revision | No | ||
| external_checked | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false already disclosed, the description adds useful context by noting that pause cleanup precedes a fresh native observation and that uncertain effects require exact external outcomes. It still does not explain what cleanup destroys, what happens on ambiguous resolution, or what the tool returns.
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 short and front-loaded, with each sentence carrying potential operational meaning. Its density and jargon reduce clarity, but it is not padded or verbose.
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, non-idempotent tool with four parameters, a complex oneOf resolution schema, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too cryptic. It omits the semantics of the resolution variants and the roles of operation_id and pause_revision, leaving major gaps.
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 0% for four parameters, including a complex oneOf resolution object with continue/observed/finish/remaining_gesture variants. The description only vaguely gestures at empty arguments and external outcomes; it does not explain operation_id, pause_revision, external_checked, or which resolution variant to choose.
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 phrase "Explicit checked continuation" largely restates the name "human_resume" in jargon rather than stating a concrete verb and resource. "Fresh native observation follows pause cleanup" hints at resumption after a pause, but the agent is left to infer what is being resumed and under what workflow.
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 gives conditional guidance: empty arguments only clear an idle pause, and uncertain effects require exact external outcomes. However, it does not compare this tool against siblings such as human_pause, human_observe, or human_status, so the routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.