manage_intentions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, but it only lists verbs. It does not disclose that create/cancel mutate state, that get/list are read-only, that dispatch may have side effects, or what resolving an intention entails. The parenthetical 'wire contract' adds no behavioral detail.

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 sentence with no padding, and the main verbs are front-loaded. However, 'wire contract' is undefined jargon, and the terse structure provides no organization for a tool with six actions and many optional fields.

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?

This is a complex tool with 13 parameters, six enum actions, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description supplies almost no operational context. Per-action parameter usage, state transitions, return values, and side effects are all absent.

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 0%, and the description names none of the 13 parameters. An agent cannot determine that action selects among six operations, nor which parameters like intention_id, behavior_name, status, or parameters are relevant for each action.

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 names a concrete resource, behavior directives, and lifecycle verbs such as queue, dispatch, track, and resolve, making the general purpose clear. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_goal or manage_beliefs, and 'wire contract' is jargon, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as set_goal, replan, or evaluate_situation. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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