nest_intake_skip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses key side effects: the file is left untouched, the item is removed from the pending queue, and the decision is logged as feedback. This goes beyond a mere 'skip' and provides useful context. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, or return details, but for a simple operation this is reasonable.

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, compact sentence with a parenthetical that adds essential side-effect details. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no redundant words, and every clause contributes meaning.

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 low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it leaves unchanged, and the side effects. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the item must already be staged) or success/failure responses, but those are relatively minor gaps given the simplicity of the operation.

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 input schema has no descriptions and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention app_id or item_id at all, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation. The meaning of these parameters must be inferred from the tool name and schema titles, which is insufficient.

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 (skip), the resource (staged item), and the effect (leaves file, removes from queue, logs as feedback). This differentiates it from sibling tools like nest_promote or nest_intake_file, which likely perform different actions on staged items.

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 when to use the tool (when you want to skip a staged item) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There are no references to sibling tools or exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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