job_resume

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that a new job is created; it does not say whether the original job remains, what side effects occur, whether this starts execution, or what wait_seconds/end_time affect. For a job-resuming mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is compact and readable, though 'terminal isolated job' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be expressed more plainly.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, so the short sentence is not enough for an agent to call it correctly. Since an output schema exists, return values are less of a concern, but the behavior and parameter semantics remain 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning only to checkpoint ('explicit job_checkpoints path'); job_id, end_time, and wait_seconds are left undefined in both the schema and description. An agent cannot determine how to set these parameters from the given text.

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 description uses a specific verb ('resume') and identifies the resource ('a terminal isolated job') plus the input mechanism ('explicit job_checkpoints path'). It is clear enough to tell this from generic job tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling job_rerun or job_checkpoints tools.

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?

It implies usage for terminal isolated jobs and on an explicit checkpoint path, which gives some context. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools such as job_rerun or how it relates to configure_checkpoints/job_checkpoints, leaving the when-to-use decision partly to inference.

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