Publish intent

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

Annotations only say non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the stored status INTENT, that the intent is compared against every other active intent, and the exact response payload (int_ id, immediate conflicts, warnings such as undeclared scopes or a symbol losing its class, related_work with asserted/why_surfaced). It also clarifies that this call is a persistent write, not a what-if.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its timing, then response shape, then the mandated follow-up sequence. It is dense but earns most of its length; the closing 'Use check_conflicts instead for a what-if check that stores nothing' largely repeats the earlier 'while only planning, use check_conflicts, which stores nothing'.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value contract, the warnings taxonomy, the asserted-vs-candidate distinction, and the downstream call sequence. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and act on the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: conflict detection relies on the scopes list so all must be declared, and omitting them produces a warning. That connects the scopes parameter to observable output behavior rather than restating the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (announce) and resource (intent, with the scopes it will change) and pins the moment in the workflow: first write for a committed task, after register_agent, before creating or editing repository files. It is clearly distinguished from the read-only alternative check_conflicts, which is named twice.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (about to do committed write work, before touching files), explicit when-not/alternative (while only planning, use check_conflicts since it stores nothing), and explicit ordering relative to siblings (record_assessment, then claim_work, then start_work). Little is left to inference.

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