override_verdict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses the permission prerequisite, the audit side effect (writes an override event with the supplied reason), and downstream side effects (board + Slack fired for tasks, updating the Project V2 card and channel). It does not address reversibility or failure modes, which leaves one gap for a forced mutation.

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?

Front-loads the core action and permission requirement, then adds usage and the attempts exception. Four sentences all carry information, though the attempts sentence is long enough that it could be tightened.

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 5-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: auth, side effects, when to use, and the sibling to prefer for attempts. It stops short of documenting parameter-level details (as_agent, status vocabulary), which is the remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys that a Reason is recorded and that a status transition occurs, and that the target is a task or finding, but it never explains as_agent, valid NewStatus values, or the EntityType format. Partial compensation only.

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+resource with scope: 'Force a state change on a task or finding without holding its claim.' It names the entities affected (task/finding), the distinguishing mechanism (no claim required), and the artifact written (an override event with a reason), letting an agent separate it from claim-based flows and from mark_task_status.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use when a subagent's claim has gone stale but the work it produced needs to be recorded') with a concrete example, and explicit exclusions/routing for attempts ('use record_commit to attach commit metadata; ... override the finding instead'). It also states the precondition — can_override_verdict on the calling actor.

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