postfader_continue_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds the useful scoping detail that only the 'unexecuted remainder' is touched, implying completed portions are preserved, which is valuable behavioral context 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?

A single 13-word sentence with no filler. The core scoping constraint ('only... unexecuted remainder') is front-loaded, and every word contributes to meaning.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with a rich output schema and descriptive parameter docs, the definition is minimally viable. However, it omits lifecycle context: whether the run must exist, what happens if it is already completed, and how this differs from postfader_execute_run. These gaps matter for a destructive tool.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the schema's delta description meaningfully explains the mode=resume, append, and replace-remaining behaviors, so an agent can correctly populate both parameters.

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 specific verbs ('continue or replace') and a precise resource ('a run's unexecuted remainder'), which is more informative than the bare title. It does not name sibling tools like postfader_execute_run or postfader_stop_run, so an agent must infer the differentiation from context rather than being told.

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?

'After a follow-up' implies this tool is for resuming an existing run rather than starting one, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are stated. The delta parameter's schema description explains mode choices, but the tool description itself does not route the agent away from postfader_execute_run or other run lifecycle tools.

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