nest_intake_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for disclosing side effects. It explicitly states the file is moved, and that an override feeds a correction counter and at threshold opens a rule-delta flag. This is strong transparency for a mutation operation, though it doesn't cover potential error cases or permissions.

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?

Two sentences of dense, front-loaded information. Every clause earns its place, describing the primary action, the override path, and the side-effect chain. No filler or 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 has side effects and conditional behavior, the description covers the main flow and cascade (override → counter → flag). It lacks return value information, but no output schema exists. It could mention error cases, but the core semantics are sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 adds meaning to `override_dest` by explaining it is for correcting the classifier and that the outcome track differs from prediction. It doesn't elaborate on `app_id` and `item_id`, but their purpose as identifiers is implicit. The partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions warrants a 3.

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 action: 'File a staged item: MOVE the file to its predicted track's destination, or to `override_dest`...'. This is a specific verb (MOVE) with a clear resource (staged file) and distinguishes it from siblings like nest_intake_scan and nest_intake_skip, which handle other intake stages.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a staged item needs to be filed, either to the predicted destination or to an override for classifier correction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'staged item' framing and override logic imply it is the filing step after scanning/queuing.

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