human_required_enqueue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that enqueuing causes automation to pause and that source_agent is recorded. However, it doesn't mention return values, persistence, or the resolution lifecycle.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide useful parameter value constraints. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and key parameter details, making it usable. It lacks details on return values or errors, but given the presence of sibling tools for resolution and listing, it is sufficient.

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 description adds valuable meaning for `kind` and `priority` by enumerating their possible values, which the schema does not provide. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates, but the remaining 5 parameters are only explained by their names.

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 enqueues work that must pause automation until a human acts, using a specific verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like human_required_resolve and human_required_list by focusing on the enqueue action.

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?

The description implies usage when automation needs human intervention and lists allowed kinds (consent, attestation, review, overload, onboarding). It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is fairly clear.

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