action_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior — output is an immutable plan plus an approval grant, implying a mutation-adjacent side effect rather than a pure read — but it says nothing about failure modes, whether the grant expires, or whether a plan is persisted. The presence of timeout_seconds on a 'prepare' tool is unexplained and suggests heavier execution than the name implies.

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 no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its density leaves little room for the guidance a six-parameter tool 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But for a six-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, one sentence is inadequate: the plan/approval lifecycle and five of the six inputs are undocumented.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly covers capability_id and the arguments object; operation, engagement_id, worker_target, and timeout_seconds are never mentioned or explained.

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?

Names a specific verb (validate), a specific input (capability-specific argument object), and concrete artifacts produced (immutable plan, approval grant). This clearly separates it from execution siblings like job_start and from capabilities_describe, even without naming them 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?

The description never says when to call this versus job_start, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a capability_id from capabilities_search. The approval-grant output hints at a prepare-then-execute flow, but the sequencing is left entirely to inference.

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