create_hitl

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

Annotations already flag a non-destructive write, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: mandatory post-creation authorization step, channel-specific prerequisites, and an ACCESS note stating a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY is required and that start_login does NOT unlock this tool. That auth-blocking detail is high-value transparency.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then separates "Agent usage" and "ACCESS" into scannable blocks. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no redundancy.

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 creation tool with nested channel configs, no output schema, and prerequisite steps, the description covers prerequisites and account access thoroughly. It is nearly complete, though it does not state whether the created config is immediately usable or what identifier is returned.

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%, so the schema documents name, channels, and timeout itself. The description still adds meaning by explaining the telegram chat_id must be obtained via create_chat_id_discovery and included in the channel config, which is guidance the schema cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a HITL config") and immediately clarifies what that object contains (channels that receive approval requests plus a default timeout). An agent understands the resource without opening the schema, and it is clearly distinct from the delete_hitl/update_hitl siblings.

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?

Explicit workflow ordering: it names request_hitl_authorization as a required follow-up and create_confirmation as the downstream consumer, and tells the agent to use create_chat_id_discovery first for Telegram channels. This is exactly the when/how-to-use guidance that lets an agent sequence calls correctly.

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