changelog_intake

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational context by naming the required handoff artifacts, but it does not explain what 'start' actually does, whether it invokes a subprocess, or what observable effects or outputs result. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the primary action. The list of handoff inputs is compact and likely reflects real prerequisites, though the internal jargon reduces readability. Overall it is appropriately sized with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what happens after the tool is invoked, but it does not mention return values, follow-up actions, or how the named artifacts are used. The meaning of 'Atlas Cartographer handoff', '@github handoff', and 'Luna execution contract' is left entirely to the agent's prior knowledge. A single required parameter is present, but its relationship to the stated workflow is unclear.

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?

The schema provides no description for repo_path (0% coverage), and the description never mentions repo_path explicitly. The phrase 'Git snapshot' hints at repository context, but it does not clarify how repo_path relates to the snapshot, handoffs, or the Luna execution contract. The property name is self-explanatory, but the description does not add the needed semantic bridge.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Start the Changelog specialist') and the tool name 'changelog_intake' reinforces that this is the entry point to a changelog workflow. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'changelog_finalize', though 'start' versus 'finalize' suggests the distinction. The list of handoff artifacts is jargon-heavy, which slightly obscures the purpose.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as changelog_finalize, personal_git_snapshot, or orchestrator_route. The word 'Start' implies this is the initial step, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing conditions are stated.

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