create_hitl

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a new request is created, but does not reveal what side effects occur (e.g., notifications, state changes), whether permissions are required, or what the outcome of creation is. The description is opaque about the tool's operational impact.

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 concise sentence that quickly conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail. The structure is front-loaded and immediately clear.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, any side effects, or how the escalation lifecycle works. An agent would lack sufficient context to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, including nested objects like escalate_to and proposed_action. Since the schema fully explains each parameter, the description does not need to add extra semantics. The description itself adds no parameter information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a new HITL escalation request'. The verb 'create' and resource 'HITL escalation request' make the purpose explicit. It easily distinguishes itself from sibling tools like approve_hitl, reject_hitl, get_hitl, and modify_hitl.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the conditions that warrant creating an escalation or compare with modifying an existing one. The only clue is the tool name itself, but the description leaves usage context entirely unaddressed.

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