create_intent

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or whether declaring an intent consumes resources. It merely states the action without transparency into its operational implications.

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 one concise sentence that conveys core purpose and position in a workflow. It is not verbose, but could benefit from slight expansion (e.g., brief note on return) without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or confirms. It also lacks context about the 3-signature chain and how this intent interacts with subsequent steps. The sibling set is large, so completeness is insufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning, e.g., how parameters relate or constraints. 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 the tool's purpose: 'Declare an intent to perform an action' and its position as the 'First step of the 3-signature chain.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evaluate_intent or complete_action, providing a specific verb and resource.

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?

While the description mentions it is the first step in a 3-signature chain, it fails to provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., evaluate_intent) or scenarios where it should not be used. The large number of sibling tools exacerbates this gap.

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