agy_act

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers none of it. Actions like finalize, cancel, revoke_plan, and discard clearly mutate or destroy state, yet nothing is said about reversibility, permissions, confirmation requirements, or what each action's side effect is.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted. But brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline — the tool is a 10-parameter, 7-action dispatcher and one clause is not an appropriate size for it.

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 10 parameters, five enums, a seven-way action dispatch, destructive operations, and no annotations or output schema, the description is far from sufficient. An agent cannot tell which parameters matter for which action or what the outcome of each action is.

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%, so the schema baseline of 3 applies. However, the descriptions are bare labels ('Action', 'Finalize mode', 'Quota choice'), so the description had a real opportunity to explain conditional parameter applicability per action (e.g., plan_file only for revoke_plan) and did not take it.

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 verb 'act' is generic and carries almost no discriminating meaning; the resource ('a job or delegation state') is the only substantive content. It does not distinguish the seven very different operations (followup, finalize, cancel, quota_choice, resume_delegation, revoke_plan, lesson) that the tool actually multiplexes, nor does it separate it from siblings agy_status/agy_get/agy_start.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this tool over agy_status, agy_start, or agy_get, and no exclusions or preconditions. An agent must infer from the action enum that this is the mutation/dispatch surface, which is exactly the inference the description should have removed.

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