advance_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose useful traits: idempotent retries via expected_stage_index and the mutual exclusivity of stage_output and skip_reason. However, it does not describe side effects, state changes, permissions, or error behavior, so the behavioral picture remains incomplete.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose before mode-specific details. Every clause carries useful information: purpose, staged usage, freeform usage, and retry behavior. No filler or repetition.

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?

Normal invocation is well-covered: required IDs, the output/skip choice, freeform completion, and retries. But since there is no output schema and no annotations, the return value shape, failure modes, and stateful edge cases are left underspecified.

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?

The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema: it maps stage_output and skip_reason to chain modes, explains done in the freeform case, and frames expected_stage_index as a retry guard. Schema coverage is already 80%, but the description enriches parameter understanding rather than just restating names.

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 first sentence names a specific action ('Submit the current stage's result') and outcome ('receive the next stage'), making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. The staged/freeform distinction further scopes the behavior and separates this tool from listing, running, saving, or exporting chains.

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 clear context: this tool is called to submit current-stage work in a chain and get the next stage. It also explains when to use stage_output vs skip_reason and how the freeform chain differs, but it does not explicitly route away from sibling tools such as run_chain or save_chain.

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