h1_create_report_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'AI-assisted report intent' without explaining side effects, required permissions, reversibility, response format, or any AI-specific processing. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the act of creation itself.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy, which is structurally clean. However, it is overly brief and under-specified. While it is concise, it lacks the detail needed to be considered appropriately sized. It could include a brief note on the purpose of AI assistance without becoming wordy.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so complexity is low, but the description does not sufficiently explain the tool's role or completion criteria. It does not describe what happens after creation, how it relates to sibling tools, or what the agent should expect. The context is incomplete for effective use.

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 100% as both parameters (description and team_handle) have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It doesn't clarify how 'AI-assisted' affects parameter usage or expected values.

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 states a specific action 'Create' on the resource 'report intent', which clearly identifies the tool's function. The qualifier 'AI-assisted' adds some distinction, but it doesn't fully differentiate from sibling tools like h1_submit_report_intent or h1_create_report. The core purpose is clear, but the description lacks explicit clarification on how this tool differs from others.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't explain whether it should be used before h1_submit_report_intent or how it relates to h1_create_report. This leaves the agent with no situational guidance.

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