guardrail_override

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the key side effect: the override 'is stored as a private session memory entry for audit' and that a full audit trail is maintained. It fall short only in not addressing permissions, reversibility, or return behavior, but the storage and privacy disclosure is meaningful.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: the purpose is front-loaded, the trigger condition comes second, and the audit-storage detail comes third. Every sentence adds distinct value and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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?

The description plus fully documented schema gives the agent the trigger, the required inputs, and the side-effect of private audit storage. No output schema exists, but for a storage/audit action this is less critical. Minor omissions like return confirmation or permission requirements keep it from a 5.

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 fully documents command, agent_id, reasoning, and matched_rules. The description adds context about reasoning length and the relationship to guardrail_check, but it does not need to enrich parameters further; 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 uses a specific verb ('Record') with a clear object ('guardrail override') and states the exact purpose: documenting an override when a blocked action is explicitly authorized. It also differentiates from the sibling guardrail_check by framing this as the action to take after guardrail_check returns 'block'.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Required when guardrail_check returns 'block' but the action is explicitly authorized.' This is a precise, actionable trigger condition that also references the sibling tool, leaving no ambiguity about the tool’s context.

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