Create Action Intent

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

Annotations already establish the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine workflow context by disclosing that this is the first of a chain of three signatures, which annotations cannot express. It still omits what state is created, whether the intent expires, and whether abandoning the chain has consequences.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or repetition. The size is appropriate for the message, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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 non-idempotent write tool in a multi-step signature chain with no output schema, the description should explain what is produced (an intent identifier?) and how it feeds the remaining two steps. Neither the chain's other steps nor the return value are described, leaving the agent unable to complete the workflow from this definition alone.

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 all 7 parameters (including the required action_type, target, scope_required, and delegation_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Declare an intent to perform an action') and adds positional context ('First step of the 3-signature chain'). However, it never names the other steps or the sibling tools that follow (evaluate_intent, complete_action), so an agent must infer the sequence from the sibling list rather than the description.

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?

'First step of the 3-signature chain' implies this must be called before the later steps, which is real sequencing guidance. But there are no explicit when/when-not statements, no mention of the prerequisite delegation (implied only by the required delegation_id parameter), and no naming of alternatives.

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