nest_intake_skip

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: false), the description explicitly states that the file remains in place, the item is removed from the pending queue, and the decision is logged as feedback. These side effects are not in the schema or annotations, providing valuable behavioral context. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but that is minor given the non-destructive guarantee.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and packs the key behavioral details efficiently. Every clause adds information; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior well. However, the missing parameter semantics and lack of mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the item must already be staged) leave minor gaps. The annotations cover the safety profile, so the overall completeness is adequate but not exceptional.

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 schema has two required parameters (app_id, item_id) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'staged item' but does not clarify which identifier refers to what, nor the relationship between them. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter metadata, leaving the agent to guess the semantics of app_id and item_id.

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 action ('Skip a staged item') and its effects (leave file in place, remove from pending queue, log as feedback). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like nest_promote or nest_intake_file, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 when to use this tool (to defer an item without deleting or moving it) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like nest_intake_file or nest_intake_flags. There is no clear 'use when' or 'use instead of' guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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