create_intent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'declare' and references a '3-signature chain' without explaining side effects, persistence, authorization requirements, return values, or irreversibility. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main verb, no redundant phrases. The description is appropriately concise and every word contributes meaning, even though it comes at the cost of depth.

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?

Given seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this two-sentence description is under-specified. It does not explain what the '3-signature chain' entails, the role of delegation_id/scope_required, or the tool's place in the overall workflow, leaving significant gaps for a complex initiating step.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only loosely maps to action_type and target via 'perform an action'.

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 identifies the action ('declare an intent') and adds process context ('first step of the 3-signature chain'). This distinguishes it from later chain steps or other create_* tools, making the purpose specific and 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 'first step' wording implies this tool initiates the intent chain, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer usage from the context, but it is not strongly differentiated from sibling tools.

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