request_override

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create an explicit approval request' and gives two action names, without explaining side effects, whether the request is asynchronous, whether it requires further approval, or how it affects gate/slice state. Some intent is conveyed, but meaningful behavioral context is missing.

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 short and the actionable examples are placed in the second sentence, making it scannable. The word 'explicit' adds limited value, but overall every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with four required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not provide enough context about the parameters, the meaning of an override request, or how it relates to sibling approval tools, even though an output schema exists.

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%, and the description only hints at the action_type parameter by listing 'WAIVE_GATE' and 'ACCEPT_SLICE'. It does not clarify subject_id, requested_by, or reason beyond their bare schema titles, leaving the agent to infer their 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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Create an explicit approval request.' The named common actions, 'WAIVE_GATE' and 'ACCEPT_SLICE', provide concrete examples that help identify the tool's purpose. However, it does not fully distinguish this request-creating tool from related siblings like approve_override or accept_slice.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as approve_override, reject_override, or intake_request. The description offers common action examples but does not state prerequisites, sequencing, or when a request should be preferred over direct actions.

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