postrc_override

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), and the description adds valuable detail by stating it 'Creates an immutable audit record.' This goes beyond the annotation and warns about user communication, enhancing transparency beyond what structured data provides.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value. It covers required parameters, usage context, warning requirements, optional expiration, and post-override action without 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?

For a destructive mutation tool, the description covers key aspects: what it does, when to use it, prerequisites, and next steps. It doesn't detail error handling or return values, but given the clean schema and annotations, the overall context is sufficient for an agent to proceed.

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. The description adds meaning by specifying that finding_id comes from 'postrc_scan results' and clarifies that 'justification' maps to the 'reason' parameter. It also mentions the optional expiration date, aligning with expires_days, which provides extra context.

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: 'Override a specific scan finding when the user accepts the risk.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings by referencing the postrc_gate blocked scenario, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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' guidance is provided: 'Use when postrc_gate is blocked by a finding the user wants to accept.' It also gives follow-up instructions ('After override: re-run postrc_gate to re-evaluate ship decision') and a necessary warning for high/critical findings. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the context implies it.

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