resume_swarm_confirm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'resume a failed swarm', which is a mutation, but gives no details on side effects (e.g., what happens to the original swarm record), permissions required, idempotency, or error conditions. This is critically insufficient for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks front-loaded structure; key behavioral details are omitted. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses a point for not using the available space to add critical information.

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 complexity of the tool (resuming a failed swarm) and the absence of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether the operation is reversible, or what state the swarm must be in. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds the context of 'coordinator checkpoint' but no additional semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 resumes a failed swarm from a coordinator checkpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like resume_swarm_inspect (which inspects checkpoints) and resume_subtask (which resumes a subtask). However, the mention of 'using a new swarm_id' is ambiguous since swarm_id is not a parameter; it suggests auto-generation, which is not explicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it should be used after inspecting a failed swarm, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required state of the failed swarm) or exclude scenarios. Sibling tools like resume_swarm_inspect are not referenced, so the agent has no context for the workflow.

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