create_intervention

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint: false. The description says 'Record' implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, whether it overwrites existing data, required permissions, or if the intervention triggers automated actions.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 creates a record and has an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers input but omits success/error behavior or return value expectations. It is minimally complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential meaning for all 6 parameters, including a list of acceptable values for intervention_type. However, it could provide more detail, e.g., format constraints for metadata or whether parameters are optional in certain contexts.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Record a supervisor intervention' and lists specific intervention types (approve, reject, pause, escalate), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_intervention' and 'list_interventions'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention that this creates a new intervention record or advise against using it for retrieval (which would be handled by sibling tools).

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