Answer a paused task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains why a task pauses but says nothing about what resuming does to task state, whether answers are validated, permission requirements, or reversibility. The trigger context is useful but far from complete for a state-mutating tool.

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 with the core condition stated immediately and no filler. It earns its brevity but is arguably too terse for the missing detail an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description supplies only the trigger scenario. It omits parameter formats, permissions, and task-state outcomes, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It hints that the answer may be a confirmation or sign-in input, but never explains 'taskId', the expected 'answer' format, or how the value maps to the paused prompt.

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 gives a specific verb (resume) and resource (a task), plus the distinguishing condition that the task paused for a human. It implicitly separates itself from task_status by focusing on resumption rather than status checking, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It clearly states the situation that selects this tool: a task that stopped needing a human, such as a confirmation or a browser sign-in that is now done. There is no exclusion or named alternative, keeping it short of a 5.

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