flowpass_quarantine

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds domain context about what a quarantine represents. However, it does not clarify what 'resolve' changes, whether add/resolve are reversible, or what a quarantine record holds beyond what annotations already imply.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the operations and resource. No wasted words, though it is perhaps too terse to fully scaffold a three-mode polymorphic tool.

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?

For a polymorphic tool with three actions, no output schema, and only lightweight annotations, the description leaves several gaps: it does not explain the shape of a quarantine, what 'resolve' returns or requires, or how the modes relate to the other flowpass_* siblings. It is minimally adequate but incomplete given the tool's complexity.

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%: the action enum includes 'Defaults to list', and reason/flow_id are documented as applying to add/resolve. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verbs (list, add, resolve) and a specific resource (FlowPass quarantines), plus a scope qualifier ('flows that should not be trusted as gates'). An agent can identify the resource and operations. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling flowpass_* tools (flowpass_record, flowpass_status, etc.), which all share the FlowPass namespace.

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 three operational modes are implied by the verbs and the action enum, and 'should not be trusted as gates' hints at the domain reason. But there is no explicit guidance on when to quarantine vs. record, resolve, or check status, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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