aiworkhub_manager_loop_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses synchronous execution, provider-free behavior, that the displaced record gets a mechanical handoff, and that calls are refused during an active turn. It omits whether the operation is idempotent and what permissions or caller identity are required.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, with the action and the mutation class ("MANAGER WRITE") front-loaded. The refusal condition is placed last where a constraint belongs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the zero-parameter schema needs no documentation. For a mutation tool with no annotations the description covers safety-relevant behavior adequately, though a note on reversibility or what the fresh passive conversation preserves would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The narration about the displaced record's handoff is behavioral context, not parameter semantics.

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 gives a concrete verb pair (close the current conversation, open a fresh passive one), which is clearly distinct from siblings like loop_continue and loop_send. It does not name the sibling alternatives explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

It states an explicit precondition for refusal ("Refused while a turn is running"), which is genuine when-not guidance. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when a turn is running, e.g. loop_continue or loop_rotate.

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