raise_attention

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

Annotations indicate not read-only and not destructive. The description expands on this by explaining the side effect: a change-log event carrying the reason and target actor, enabling routing and DM notifications. It also clarifies the flag is not the discussion 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 exceptionally concise at three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the main purpose. No superfluous words. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, key parameters, and behavioral impact. It does not mention prerequisites or error scenarios, but it is adequate for an agent to understand how to use the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'reason' and 'for_actor' by stating they are carried in the change-log event. 'Card_id' is implied. It could be more explicit about 'for_actor' being optional and its default behavior, but it provides context beyond the schema.

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 flags a card as needing a decision or input. It provides an example and distinguishes from sibling 'clear_attention' by explaining the flag is a signal, not a discussion. The verb 'Flag' and resource 'card' are 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 gives clear context on when to use: when a decision or input is needed, especially for humans or specific agents. It advises to put the actual question in a comment, implying this tool is for signaling, not discussion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'add_comment'.

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