dev_pipeline_resume

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: non-selected completed results are preserved, interrupted runs require a reconciliation gate before confirmInterrupted=true, and commands are immutable across resume. With destructiveHint=true already declared, it usefully clarifies blast radius, though it doesn't state what happens to failed (non-completed) nodes.

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?

Three dense sentences, zero filler, with the core retry semantics front-loaded and the reconciliation caveat and command-immutability follow-up each earning their place.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the nontrivial resume semantics and the confirmInterrupted gate well. It is not fully complete because device/run identifier parameters are undocumented anywhere.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing and the description must carry the load. It gives meaning to nodes ('selected nodes and their descendants') and indirectly to confirmInterrupted, but leaves runId, deviceId, and deviceName completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (retry/resume) and resource (selected pipeline nodes and descendants) with the key scoping constraint of preserving other completed results. It is clearly distinct from dev_pipeline_start via the 'submit a new graph' note, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete when-condition ('Interrupted executions require reconciliation before confirmInterrupted=true') and routes the change-command case to a new graph instead of this tool. It stops short of an explicit when-not/alternatives sentence naming dev_pipeline_start or dev_pipeline_cancel.

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