modify_hitl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Modify' without detailing side effects, whether the action is replaced entirely, reversibility, permission requirements, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and object. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or filler.

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 the tool has a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value, the meaning of 'modify' (e.g., replacement vs. partial update), or how it differs from approval/rejection flows. A more complete description would address these gaps, making this inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 100% with descriptive text for all top-level parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only echoing 'new action' which maps to modified_action. Since the schema already defines the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though nested properties like item and type lack individual descriptions.

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 'Modify' with a clear resource ('HITL escalation') and identifies what changes ('with new action'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_hitl, approve_hitl, reject_hitl, get_hitl, and list_hitls. This makes the purpose immediately obvious.

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 implies this tool is for updating an existing HITL escalation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like approve_hitl or reject_hitl. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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