veto_hitl_checkpoint

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

Description mentions pausing and returning an approval request, but lacks details on lifecycle (e.g., does it resume automatically after approval?). Contradicts readOnlyHint annotation by implying a side effect of pausing workflow.

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 concise sentences. First describes core function, second adds usage context. No unnecessary words.

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?

Description covers purpose and usage well. However, lacks details on the return format ('structured approval-request') and what happens after user response. Given no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting at the structured output. No new semantic insight.

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?

Description clearly states the tool pauses a workflow and returns an approval request. It specifies concrete use cases (destructive operations, RED council verdicts, bulk deletes), distinguishing it from sibling 'veto_' tools.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use before destructive operations, RED council verdicts, or bulk deletes.' This provides clear context and implies when not to use (when no human approval is needed).

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