zelinqa_adjust

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call is silent (no question, no turn consumed) and that it writes at the highest evidence priority (implied by "confirmed"), but it says nothing about reversibility, error behavior on unknown IDs, or idempotency for a clear mutation tool.

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?

Two dense sentences with the action and its silent-mode benefit front-loaded. Slightly jargon-heavy ("without asking a question or consuming a turn") but no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists and the nested $defs describe operation/value semantics, so the description need not cover return values. Given that supporting structure, the description's coverage of intent and the evidence-integrity constraint is close to sufficient, with only the interaction between data/dimensions/objective left implicit.

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 only 25%, yet the description only nods at the parameters by category ("data", "dimension statuses", "objective override") without adding format or constraint detail. The nested $defs do document operation and value semantics richly, so the description adds marginal value rather than compensating for the gap.

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 (apply) with three concrete resources: confirmed business data, dimension statuses, and an objective override. It implicitly differentiates from the question-flow siblings by noting it does not ask a question or consume a turn, but it never names an alternative tool.

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?

Gives real context for when to use it: when information is already confirmed and the agent should not go through the questioning path. It also states a negative constraint (never invent values or mark unverified results achieved), but stops short of explicitly naming zelinqa_next_question as the alternative for unconfirmed cases.

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