continue_turn

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

Annotations already convey non-readonly, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds the context that the operation targets an existing thread and creates a new turn. This is useful but does not disclose additional side effects, failure conditions, or requirements beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core operation and target context.

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 is adequate for a simple tool, and the output schema reduces the need to document return values. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no guidance distinguishing it from start_turn, an agent is left to infer the roles of environmentId and the exact relationship to sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It loosely implies prompt is the new turn content and threadId is the selected thread, but environmentId is left entirely unexplained and no parameter is explicitly mapped.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a new turn' to an 'existing thread.' It clearly indicates the tool continues an existing conversation, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling start_turn tool.

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?

Usage is implied by 'explicitly selected existing thread': the tool is for continuing an already-created thread, not for starting a new one. However, it never states when to prefer this over start_turn or gives any exclusions.

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