openvsp.batch_resume

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial context: it verifies identities and artifacts before updating state, reuses successful cases, rejects metadata-only updates, and launches background work. This goes beyond the annotation's simple destructive flag, clarifying the preconditions and side effects. A slight deduction for not detailing the exact state changes or output format, but the behavioral details are strong.

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 dense but information-rich, with each sentence earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose and then details conditions and exclusions. Slightly long for a single paragraph, but structured with semicolons to separate ideas. No redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (state changes, identity checks, background launch), the description covers the necessary preconditions and behaviors. An output schema exists (though not shown here), so return values are covered. Minor gap: it doesn't mention the exact failure behavior for batch_directory not found, but the schema hints at it. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.

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 thorough descriptions for both parameters (case_ids and batch_directory), covering coverage 100%. The description adds context by explaining empty case_ids behavior (all non-successful cases) and emphasizing the idle requirement, which is not fully in the schema. This elevates from baseline 3 to 4.

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 the tool's purpose: retry selected non-successful cases in an idle batch, with explicit mention of reusing successful cases and rejecting identity changes. It distinguishes itself from batch_submit and batch_cancel by referencing those as alternatives, and the sibling list confirms these exist.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for retrying non-successful cases in an idle batch, with conditions (idle batch, source/package/binary identities unchanged). It also states when not to use it (for new batches use batch_submit, or use original runtime for identity changes), clearly routing to alternatives.

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