resume_training_job

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful context: the tool restarts from the highest-step checkpoint, falls back to step 0 if none exists, and reuses the same job_id. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model without contradicting 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes useful caveats about checkpoint selection and FAILED jobs, and references the underlying API endpoint for context. It is not overly verbose, though the two-paragraph layout could be slightly tightened.

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 tool's main behavior, prerequisites (stopped job), checkpoint behavior, and how to handle FAILED jobs. It also points to edit_training_job as an alternative step. Missing details like return values are acceptable given the simple single-parameter schema and annotations.

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 only documents job_id as a required string. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that job_id refers to an existing stopped job and that no new job is created. This helps the agent understand the parameter's role beyond the schema's minimal 'Job Id' title.

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: 'Resume a stopped training job from its latest checkpoint.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it reuses the same job_id rather than creating a new job, which separates it from submit_training_job and edit_training_job.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Useful after a preemption.' It also provides guidance for when not to resume immediately, instructing the agent to read the error for a FAILED job and fix the cause, often via edit_training_job, before resuming.

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