nest_intake_file

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description enriches this by explaining the behavioral consequence: an override 'feeds the correction counter and, at threshold, opens a rule-delta flag.' This tells the agent this isn't just a file move; it's a learning signal. The 'MOVE' emphasis correctly flags the destructive/irreversible nature, adding value beyond the raw annotation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The first sentence gives the core operation and its parameter; the second explains the collision-detection semantic that an agent must know. No wasted words.

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 three simple parameters (two IDs and an optional override), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to use the override, and what side effects occur. The lack of an output schema is fine since it's a pure action tool with no specified return value.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. The description explains `override_dest`'s purpose and what happens when used, going beyond the schema's bare declaration. It implies what `app_id` and `item_id` are (identifiers of the staged item) by referring to 'a staged item' as the tool's resource.

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 ('File') and resource ('a staged item'), and clearly explains it moves the file to its predicted track's destination or to the override path. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `nest_intake_skip` by framing this as the 'intake' action, but more importantly it explains the override mechanism in a way that makes the tool's role in the pipeline clear.

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 clearly explains when to use the `override_dest` parameter ('if you're correcting the classifier'), which tells the agent when this tool takes on a corrective role. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the context implies this is the 'file now' action versus skipping or other intake operations. It could be slightly stronger by naming a specific sibling to compare against.

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