code_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It notes that resume 'returns a self-contained brief', which is useful, but says nothing about whether cancel/reopen are destructive, what happens to an interrupted job, permission requirements, or the role of the expected_state_revision guard. For a lifecycle-mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence listing operations with no filler. The one parenthetical adds real value. It is compact, though the enumeration is incomplete relative to the action enum.

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 10-parameter, 8-action, unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers only half the actions and one return value. An agent still lacks enough to select the right action safely or predict effects of cancel/reopen/switch_route.

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 schema baseline already documents all ten parameters, including the enums. The description only adds meaning for resume's return value; it does not explain ref, goal, route, or how expected_state_revision interacts with the actions, so it stays at baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource phrase ('Manage task lifecycle') and names four concrete operations (cancel, resume, reopen, check job). However, it omits three of the eight enum actions (switch_route, expand, cancel_job) and gives no hint of how it differs from siblings like code_task or code_status.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present, and no alternatives are named. An agent cannot tell from the description why it would call code_control rather than code_task or code_status, nor which of the unlisted actions apply.

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