Continue Recommendation

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the two-checkpoint state machine, that the run halts at 'approve_report' with a report, that approval persists the report, and that feedback is capped at 2 revisions. It stops short of describing failure modes, e.g. what happens if a checkpoint-2 parameter is sent at checkpoint 1, or whether an aborted run can still be resumed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then organized checkpoint-by-checkpoint. The second block is dense semicolon-chained prose that takes a careful read, but no sentence is redundant.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description supplies the workflow context the structured fields cannot: checkpoint semantics, consent requirement, revision cap, and abort behavior. Missing only edge-case behavior (mismatched checkpoint, invalid/expired run_id, resuming after abort).

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the checkpoint labels and the 'true ONLY after the user explicitly approved' constraint. The description mostly re-groups those same parameters by checkpoint, adding workflow framing but little new per-parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Resume a recommendation run') and immediately scopes it to 'the USER's decision at its current checkpoint', which cleanly separates it from the sibling run_recommendation that starts a run. The checkpoint names give an agent a concrete mental model of what the tool acts on.

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?

Explicitly branches by state: at 'select_candidates' pass keep/add/context_tokens, at 'approve_report' use approve/feedback, and abort=true ends the run at any checkpoint. It even states the consent precondition ('only with explicit user consent') and the alternative to approval (feedback='...' produces a revised report).

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