cycle_decision_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that only supervisor-accepted transitions count as progress, that reasoning alone is never proof, and that completion/stop intents are refused. However, it lacks details on authorization requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., whether previous transitions are invalidated), and what happens after submission (e.g., blocking vs. async).

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 concise at four sentences. The first sentence immediately provides the core purpose and context (supervisor decision hook). Subsequent sentences add useful detail about allowed/disallowed intents. No redundant information, though the phrase 'reasoning alone is never proof' adds behavioral nuance but is slightly tangential.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It partially explains the intent parameter but ignores the other four parameters. It does not describe return values or error conditions, leaving the agent to guess the full interaction flow for a tool with 6 parameters and critical behavioral implications.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'intent' parameter by listing allowed values (promote, advance_phase, etc.) and disallowed ones (completion/stop). However, parameters like runId, loop, newEpoch, rationale, and hypothesisId are not explained at all, leaving the transition packet concept vague and the agent without guidance on what to fill.

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 is the supervisor decision hook for transition packets, listing specific allowed intents (promote, advance_phase, etc.) and disallowed ones (completion/stop). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like promotion_request or request_next_phase by making the supervisor-approval requirement explicit.

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 description explicitly defines when to use this tool (proposing a transition needing supervisor acceptance) and when not to (completion/stop intents are refused). It provides a list of allowed intents and states that reasoning alone is insufficient, but does not name alternative sibling tools for the refused intents, only noting that the operator is the stop condition.

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