Extend an ongoing agent collaboration by running additional rounds of turn-taking responses.
Continue an active collaboration for additional rounds. Agents take turns responding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rounds | No | Number of additional rounds to run. Default: 1 | |
| collaboration_id | Yes | The collaboration ID from start_collaboration. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context by stating 'Agents take turns responding,' which reveals the interaction pattern. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the collaboration state is mutated), whether the call blocks, or what the return value is. This is partial transparency, but not comprehensive.
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 two sentences with zero unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a behavior detail in the second. Every word earns its place.
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?
This is a simple tool with two parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and the agent turn-taking behavior, and the schema covers parameter meanings. It does not mention the return value, but for a continuation tool it may not be critical. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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% because both collaboration_id and rounds have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it provides no extra semantic value. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Continue an active collaboration for additional rounds.' It specifies that it is for an existing collaboration, which distinguishes it from start_collaboration and end_collaboration. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from nudge_collaboration, which might also extend collaboration, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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 gives clear context by saying 'active collaboration' and 'additional rounds,' which implies it should be used when a collaboration already exists. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use this tool versus starting or ending.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.