flag_ambiguity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the impact field's allowed values (low/medium/high/critical), which is a small behavioral hint, but it doesn't describe side effects, permissions, reversibility, or the nature of the operation beyond being a wrapper. Significant gaps exist.

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, using a single sentence plus a list of allowed impact values. It front-loads the primary action and then notes the wrapper relationship. However, it could be better structured by separating the allowed values into a clearer format, but overall it's not verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description is grossly incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters. It fails to explain the purpose of most parameters, when to use this tool over alternatives, or any behavioral context. Given no annotations, the description is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only addresses the 'impact' parameter with allowed values, adding value over the schema's plain string type. However, it provides no semantics for the other six parameters (title, question, tags, details, project, interpretations), leaving them undocumented.

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 clear verb ('Flag') and resource ('an ambiguity'), and mentions it is a convenience wrapper for ambiguity_create, which helps distinguish it from the sibling tool. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'flagging' entails beyond creating an ambiguity record, so it's clear but not highly specific.

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 only minimal guidance: it says it's a convenience wrapper for ambiguity_create, implying it's a simpler alternative. But it doesn't specify when to use this vs other similar tools (e.g., open_question_create, assumption_create) or when not to use it. No explicit exclusions or context are given.

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