jev_continue

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, open-world, and destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety traits. It adds valuable behavioral nuance by explaining that discoveries and prior effects are preserved and that the workflow is not replayed. The instruction that input values should be supplied data, not guesses, is additional meaningful guidance. No contradiction with the 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?

The description is composed of three short, purposeful sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes meaning: what the tool does, what state it preserves, and what kind of input is acceptable. There is 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?

For a tool with five parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers the main purpose and persistence semantics but leaves gaps. sessionId and effectResolution are not semantically explained, and there is no guidance on expected results or how the continuation appears to the caller. The annotations handle the safety profile, making this adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain the intended meaning of values, note, and facts, and clarifies that values should be real supplied data. However, it does not explain the required sessionId parameter or the meaning of effectResolution (confirmed/not_applied), leaving those under-specified.

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 a specific verb and resource: continue the same objective in the same live browser, adding missing values, a note, or sourced facts. The mention of not replaying the whole workflow distinguishes it from a fresh start, and it contrasts naturally with sibling tools like jev_open, jev_explore, or jev_act that perform new actions.

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 useful context: use this when continuing an existing objective rather than starting over, and when you need to supply concrete data, notes, or facts. It even warns against guessed answers. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state clear when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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