Fail Decision Task

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes further by explaining exactly what is destroyed/changed (task ends with status 'failed', a Human Review is raised, the app's fallback policy of rules-decide/hold-for-review/fail-the-run is applied). It also documents stale-epoch behavior (HTTP 409) and the three 403 error codes with explicit 'do not retry' guidance, none of which the annotations carry.

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 purpose sentence followed by labeled sections (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, ARGS, AUTH) that let an agent scan for exactly what it needs. Despite covering a lot, every clause carries non-redundant information; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent the observable outcome (Human Review created, fallback policy applied, task status 'failed') and covers the full failure surface: 409 stale epoch and the three 403 codes. Auth requirements (per-app 'decide' grant, apps:decide scope, senior_member tier) are spelled out, leaving no material gap for a mutation tool.

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 100% and each parameter already documents itself, including the 2,000-character limit on reason and the 409-on-stale-epoch note for execution_epoch. The description restates the three argument names and the character cap but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the claimed decision task cannot be decided') and immediately names the two concrete consequences: raising a Human Review and applying the app's declared fallback policy. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like talonic_release_decision_task and talonic_submit_decision_task, which are named as the alternatives.

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?

Explicit USE WHEN condition (package insufficient or contradictory, no claimant could decide) and explicit NOT FOR exclusions that route to named siblings: temporary give-backs go to talonic_release_decision_task, low-confidence decisions go to submit-with-confidence. Nothing is left to inference.

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