resume_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (resuming from failure, re-running, injecting steps) but lacks details on idempotency, side effects, authorization requirements, or error handling beyond the basic flow. The behavior is clear enough for an agent to avoid misuse.

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 short paragraphs: first a one-liner summary, second a concise bullet list of actions. Every sentence is informative, no fluff 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?

Given the complexity of resuming a batch with retry and fix steps, the description covers the main workflow and references execute_batch. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., if fix_steps fail) but the output schema exists to document return values. Minor gap for a tool that modifies state.

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 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the context: batch_id comes from failed execute_batch, fix_steps follow the same format, timeout_ms overrides the original. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states it resumes a failed batch from its failure point, with optional fix steps. It uses specific verbs ('resume', 're-run', 'continue') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'execute_batch' by explicitly referencing the failure scenario.

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 explicitly states when to use: after execute_batch returns status=FAIL with a batch_id. It outlines the actions taken (re-run failed step, inject fix steps, continue remaining). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the implied sequence.

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