human_required_enqueue

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool pauses automation and records the calling app as source_agent. These are behavioral side effects that are not evident from the schema or annotations, adding useful transparency.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with inline enum lists for kind and priority. It is well-structured, with no redundant information, and directly conveys the core functionality.

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?

The description does not mention the return value or post-conditions, and since there is no output schema, agents have no information about expected responses. It also omits details about side effects beyond recording source_agent and pausing automation, leaving some contextual 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?

The description explains the 'kind' and 'priority' parameters with allowed values, but leaves 'title', 'summary', 'assignee', and 'source_ref' undefined. Since the schema provides no descriptions for any parameters, this partial coverage helps but does not fully clarify the remaining fields.

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 clearly states the tool's function: enqueue work that pauses automation until human action. It specifies the verb 'enqueue' and the resource (work requiring human intervention), and lists relevant kinds and priority levels, effectively distinguishing it from resolution or listing tools.

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?

The description implies usage (when you need to create a human-required task) but provides no explicit differentiation from sibling tools like human_required_resolve or human_required_list. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the action verb.

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