martin_continue

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

The description adds the behavioral context of 'durable' persistence and the post-pause/checkpoint timing, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, with destructiveHint=true, it does not explain what destructive effect may occur or why a record-request operation is flagged destructive, leaving that significant behavior unexplained.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and provides the key contextual condition without wasting words.

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?

With six parameters, a oneOf selection requirement, and zero parameter descriptions, the tool needs much more contextual explanation to be invoked correctly. The description tells why and when, but not how to specify the target run or what values like reason, runsDir, and requestedBy mean. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters, but it mentions none of them. The oneOf construct with file, loopId, or latest is present in the schema but not elaborated, leaving the agent to guess what each identifier means and when to choose one.

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 a specific verb ('Record') and clearly identifies both the action (durable continue/resume request) and the context (a Martin run after a human pause or approval checkpoint). This is distinct from sibling tools like martin_pause or martin_cancel, as it describes resumption rather than stopping.

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 phrase 'after a human pause or approval checkpoint' gives useful contextual guidance for when the tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance, but the timing context is clear.

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