workflow_item_waive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key side effect: the item moves to a 'waived' terminal state and counts toward the completion guard. It also states the prerequisite of approver/reason. It does not mention reversibility, permission requirements, or other side effects, but the disclosed information is sufficient for basic safe use.

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 and well-structured: a single introductory sentence states the purpose, followed by a sentence on prerequisites and state effect, then a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the most important behavioral details are front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, one optional) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, state change, guard interaction, and parameter semantics. It does not explain error conditions or behavior when the item is not in reviewing state, but those are likely handled by the tool itself. Overall, the description provides enough context for correct invocation.

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's Args section is essential. It provides meaningful semantics for all four parameters: `item_id` gets a format hint (WI-NNN), `approver` and `reason` get clear contextual definitions, and `project_dir` is described as defaulting to the working directory. This goes far beyond the schema's bare type/title information.

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 opens with a specific, action-oriented definition: 'Waive a work item that is in reviewing state.' It clearly identifies the resource (work item), the action (waive), and the applicable state. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like workflow_item_transition by stating the terminal 'waived' state, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly constrains usage to items in 'reviewing state' and states prerequisites: requires an explicit approver and reason. This gives clear context for when the tool should be used. It does not name alternative tools for non-waive transitions, so it falls short of explicit when-not/alternative guidance.

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