process_failure

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description only adds the word 'Free.' and the phrase 'Work through a recent failure or setback.' It does not explain what 'work through' entails (e.g., recording, analysis, next actions), nor does it disclose any side effects, state changes, or resource usage. With no behavioral detail, the description fails to add value beyond annotations.

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 very short (one sentence plus 'Free.'), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose, usage, or behavior). While brevity is valued, the description sacrifices completeness, making it less helpful for an agent.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain (failure processing), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it processes failures, or what side effects occur. Given the richness of sibling tools and the need for clear context, this description is notably incomplete.

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%, and the schema already provides clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., failure_type enum, context, session_id, ritual_strip, response_mode, response_profile). The description adds no additional meaning or usage context for these parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 that the tool works through recent failures or setbacks, including infra incidents and qualitative protocol failures. This provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like financial_setback_processing or crisis_intervention, which may lead to ambiguity about when to use this general tool vs. more specific ones.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, restrictions, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without clear decision support.

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