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

The description conveys the general behavior (presenting options and context to the user) and return value, but does not disclose important traits such as whether the call blocks execution, waits for user response, or has side effects. With no annotations, additional behavioral context would be valuable.

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 well-organized with clear sections (Description, Args, Returns) and is concise. The only structural flaw is the nested indentation that ambiguously places decision_area and constraints under options rather than as top-level args, which slightly hurts readability.

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 description covers purpose, most parameters, and return value, but misses the task_id parameter and does not clarify interaction behavior (e.g., blocking, waiting for user). This is adequate but incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that merely specifies a string.

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?

The description adds meaningful definitions for 5 of 6 parameters (problem, research, options, decision_area, constraints), filling the gap left by the schema's lack of descriptions. However, the task_id parameter is completely omitted, preventing a perfect score.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Involve the user') and resource ('resolve blockers or conflicts'). It distinguishes from siblings like raise_missing_requirements and request_plan_approval through the concept of 'obstacles', but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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 for when to use the tool: when there are blockers or conflicts that require user involvement. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with alternative tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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