raise_deviation

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'forced disposition' hints that the caller supplies the outcome, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, state changes, reversibility, or what happens after registration.

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 tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and core constraint, which is efficient, though the brevity contributes to under-specification.

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?

With 7 required parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and significant sibling overlap, the description is far too thin. The output schema may clarify return values, but an agent still lacks essential information about parameter semantics, preconditions, and behavioral effects.

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 none of the 7 required parameters are described in the schema. The description only references 'disposition' indirectly and says nothing about contract_id, actor_id, actor_role, base_revision, title, or description. An agent cannot reliably fill these parameters from this definition.

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 names a specific verb ('Register') and a specific resource ('shortcut/deviation'), and adds the key qualifier 'with a forced disposition.' This makes the tool's core action understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from deviation-related siblings like waive_deviation.

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 raise_attention, request_intervention, or waive_deviation. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and single sentence.

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