remediation_preflight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a transaction and computing blast radius/rollback plan, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., persistence, reversibility, mutation of existing state), permission requirements, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a create operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and outputs. However, it is too short given the tool's complexity, leaving out critical details that would make it more useful.

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 tool has four required nested parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains none of the workflow context, parameter relationships, or expected return. An agent cannot confidently call this correctly without more guidance, especially given the sibling workflow that this tool clearly initiates.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only says 'policy-gated' which hints at policy's role, but does not explain what transactionId, snapshot, actions, or policy mean or how they relate. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond field names.

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 ('Create'), a clear resource ('policy-gated remediation transaction'), and the additional outputs ('blast radius and rollback plan'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remediation_approve, remediation_verify, and remediation_record_rollback, which focus on later workflow stages.

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 implies a preflight step by its focus on creation and computation of impact/rollback, which naturally precedes approval or execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or mention sequencing. Still, the verb and output make the role obvious enough to route an agent.

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