flag_requirement_issue

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

Annotations already disclose this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description usefully adds that the record is escalated to a human rather than auto-resolved, but says nothing about duplicate flags, whether it mutates the requirement itself, or what the created artifact looks like. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero filler; the action and its escalation target come first, and the substitution rule follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing routing value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be described, and the annotations cover the write semantics. The remaining hole is input-level: with 0% schema coverage the description leaves `description` and `related_req_ids` unexplained, which is a real gap for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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, and it only partly does: the enumerated problem conditions imply the `kind` values, and 'a requirement' implies `req_id`. The required `description` field and the optional `related_req_ids` parameter are never explained, leaving two of four parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (record a problem with a requirement) and states the outcome (for a human to resolve), which is more precise than the tool name alone. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from nearby workflow siblings like record_review or find_gaps, which could also be seen as ways to surface requirement problems.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers that map directly to the `kind` enum values (ambiguous, conflicts, can't be tested) and frames it as the alternative to guessing. What's missing is a name-check of the sibling that would otherwise be tempting (find_gaps, lint_requirements) or a note on when *not* to flag.

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