resume_analysis_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dependence on durable search checkpoints and checkpoint compatibility, which is useful non-obvious behavior, but says nothing about what happens when checkpoints are incompatible, whether resume is idempotent, or whether prior results are preserved or discarded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. The precondition (interrupted/failed/cancelled) and the mechanism (compatible durable search checkpoints) are both stated compactly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here, and for a one-parameter tool the description covers the essential state precondition and mechanism. The remaining gap is behavioral detail around checkpoint incompatibility, which would need annotations or a longer description to close.

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?

One parameter, job_id, has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no format or sourcing guidance for it. The only added meaning is an implicit constraint that the referenced job be in a resumable state, which is marginal over the schema.

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 (resume) and resource (game/analysis job) with the exact precondition states (interrupted, failed, cancelled). This inherently separates it from start_analysis_job and cancel_analysis_job, though it never names those siblings 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?

Clear context for when to call it: only for an existing job in an interrupted, failed, or cancelled state, and only with compatible checkpoints. No alternative is named for the incompatible-checkpoint case, but the conditional framing is genuinely actionable.

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