Fail Decision Task

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

The description explains that this ends the task with status 'failed', raises a Human Review, applies the app's declared fallback policy, and handles stale epochs with 409. It also details auth failure modes and the correct user action on 403, far exceeding what the annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then organized into clear USE WHEN, NOT FOR, ARGS, and AUTH sections. Every sentence carries operational value, including the specific 403 error codes and the instruction not to retry.

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 terminal fail action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, non-use cases, arguments, auth requirements, error semantics, and end-state. The fallback policy options are enumerated, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description's ARGS line mostly restates parameter names and the reason length limit already present in the schema, adding little new semantic meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: report that a claimed decision task cannot be decided, raising a Human Review and applying the fallback policy. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like talonic_release_decision_task and talonic_submit_decision_task.

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 and NOT FOR sections give concrete conditions: insufficient/contradictory package with no claimant able to decide. It names the alternatives—temporary give-backs via release, and low-confidence submittals—so the agent knows exactly when not to invoke this tool.

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