scf_respond_to_engagement_query

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that this is a write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: posting a response transitions the query state to answered, and the return value is the updated query with its full thread. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, the write nature is stated, the state transition is disclosed, and the return value is specified. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a write operation with four required UUID parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, the state change, and the return value. It doesn't mention error cases or prerequisites (e.g., query must be open), but the state transition implies that. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the semantic context that content is the response text and that the query_id refers to an open query, but it doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Add a response'), a specific resource ('auditor query'), and the write nature of the operation. It also distinguishes itself from related query tools by noting it moves an open query to answered, which differentiates it from scf_create_engagement_query and scf_update_engagement_query_status.

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 clearly indicates this is for responding to an auditor query and notes the actor scope ('org member or assigned auditor'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of the query lifecycle is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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