Report Application Failure

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (destructive, not read-only, not idempotent); the description goes well beyond by disclosing reversibility semantics — needs_human is resumable while submission_uncertain is terminal — and cross-tool effects (resume_proposal refused, mark_submitted advances it). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and state transition, then the special-case reason, then the recovery path. Dense and mostly efficient, though the final sentence ('The user's attestation, or the agent's (channel auto) in full automation mode, through mark_submitted moves it on') is convoluted and requires re-reading.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical states, transitions, and cross-tool interactions an agent needs. Minor gaps remain: behavior on invalid state transitions, and what non-'submission_uncertain' reason values do.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It adds real value for `reason` by defining the special value 'submission_uncertain' and its effect, but is silent on other accepted reason values and says nothing about `proposal_id` beyond the obvious. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report execution failure') and immediately defines the state machine it drives: from pending_review/accepted/approved to needs_human. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like resume_proposal and mark_submitted without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (only valid from pending_review/accepted/approved) and explains the consequence of each path, including that resume_proposal is refused once the terminal submission_uncertain status is reached. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' framing against sibling tools, but the workflow context is strong enough to route correctly.

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