snipe_abort

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the status mutation ('Marks it BLOCKED / INVESTIGATE with the reason') but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether the snipe must be claimed, or any other side effect; for an unannotated mutation this is thin.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words, and the stop condition is front-loaded. However, the action is buried in the second sentence and the colloquial 'nobody wanders for 40 minutes' adds color but not operational clarity.

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 no annotations, two required parameters with 0% schema descriptions, and a mutation operation, the description should explain the id, reason, and effect on the snipe. The output schema covers returns, but the invocation semantics and behavioral guarantees are incomplete.

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%, and the description mentions only 'the reason' without defining its format or role. It says nothing about the required 'id' parameter (presumably the snipe identifier), so it leaves most parameter meaning to the schema titles alone.

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 conveys an abort-like action ('Stop condition', 'Marks it BLOCKED / INVESTIGATE') and the trigger, but it never defines 'snipe' or clearly states that it aborts a claimed snipe task. It also does not differentiate from siblings like verify_snipe or snipe_update, so an agent must infer the resource.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('the fix stopped being a snipe') with examples (schema migration, public API change, many modules). It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing to an alternative tool, so not a 5.

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