declare_intent_hitl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains that the tool returns a sessionToken, that it is a prerequisite for later approved actions, and that it should precede user approval. It does not elaborate on failure modes or consequences, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 compact, front-loaded with the best-practice directive, and uses a clear numbered flow. Every sentence adds relevant information without 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 coordination tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the intended sequence, the returned token, and how subsequent sibling tools should be invoked. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and understand the resulting workflow.

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 already documents action, target, and reason. The description adds a usage example and clarifies the role of reason, but provides little additional meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states this tool declares intent and returns a sessionToken before user approval, distinguishing it from sibling execution tools (edit_hitl, write_hitl, bash_hitl). The verb 'declarar' plus the explicit flow makes its role unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to use it before question(), presents a numbered ideal flow, and names the subsequent tools that require the sessionToken and approved: true. This is strong when-to-use guidance with concrete sequencing.

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