Bulk: Resume Run

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

With no annotations present, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond basic expectations by detailing the persistence mechanism ('progress is persisted after every row'), the resume point, idempotency ('rows that were already applied are never applied again'), and refusal cases. This gives the agent a clear mental model of the tool's side effects.

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 two sentences that pack in purpose, behavior, and constraints without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses the second sentence to clarify guarantees and refusals. Every clause adds value.

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 description covers the essential aspects: when to use, what it does, safety guarantees, and refusal conditions. However, it does not mention what the function returns or how the agent knows if the resume was successful. Since there is no output schema, a brief note about the response would make it fully complete. Still, for a single-parameter tool, it is highly informative.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, run_id, with a description referencing bulk_run_status. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: 'Continue a bulk run whose worker stopped before finishing', with concrete examples (host restart, killed process). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bulk_execute and bulk_run_status by focusing on the resume scenario and specifying refusal conditions.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (after an interrupted run) and provides exclusion criteria ('Refuses if the run is already finished or still actively running'). It also explains that progress is persisted and rows are not reapplied, reinforcing the safety of using it after a crash. The schema reference to bulk_run_status adds additional context for checking status.

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