handle_disruption

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It lists the steps (status check, assessment, rebooking, policy, message) and notes the scenario parameter is mock-only, but does not clarify if actions are immutable, require permissions, or produce side effects.

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 concise with a clear opening on purpose followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value 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 multi-step tool with no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (beyond 'grounded passenger message'), error conditions, or idempotency. This gap hinders full understanding of tool behavior.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the 'Args' section in the description provides thorough explanations for all parameters: carrier_code format, flight_number usage, departure_date ISO format, and the scenario mock options. It also specifies required parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: running a full disruption-handling agent with multiple steps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like flight_status and search_flights by bundling those tasks into one orchestration.

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 usage when a comprehensive disruption workflow is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus individual sibling tools, nor does it provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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