aiworkhub_manager_loop_rotate

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

With no annotations, the description does meaningful work: it declares the write nature, the asynchronous return (state: 'running'), the exact refusal error code, the no-queue semantics, and the handoff rehydration behavior. It omits authorization requirements and what 'reason' is recorded for, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with a 'MANAGER WRITE:' mode marker before the behavioral detail. No padding, though the state/error reference could be slightly more compact.

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 are partly covered, and the description usefully explains the async contract anyway. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the missing when-to-use-vs-siblings guidance and the completely undocumented 'reason' parameter leave real gaps.

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% for the single required 'reason' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not — the word 'reason' never appears in the description. An agent has no guidance on format, expected content, or whether it is free-form narrative versus a code.

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 ('close the session with a handoff, in the background') and names the successor mechanism via aiworkhub_manager_loop_start. It never distinguishes itself explicitly from loop_close, loop_new, or loop_restore, which are close siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides a real usage condition — the call is refused with manager_turn_in_progress while a turn is running, and nothing is queued — plus the follow-up dependency on loop_start. But it never says when to pick rotate over loop_close, loop_new, or loop_restore, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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