waive_deviation

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an authorization constraint ('Acceptor-only') and a state transition ('blocker' to 'acceptable_this_phase'), but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, concurrency implications of base_revision, or failure behavior.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The most important constraint ('Acceptor-only') is front-loaded, and every word adds meaning.

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?

This is a mutation tool with six required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema. One sentence is not enough to guide an agent safely: it needs clarity on base_revision, the meaning and necessity of reason, and any preconditions or side 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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only hints at actor_role ('Acceptor-only') and the target deviation state ('blocker'), but it does not explain base_revision, reason, contract_id, deviation_id, or actor_id 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 states a specific verb ('downgrade'), a specific resource ('blocker deviation'), and a concrete target state ('acceptable_this_phase'). It also names the role constraint upfront ('Acceptor-only'), which distinguishes it from related deviation-handling tools like raise_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?

The description gives clear context by specifying that only acceptors can perform this action and that it applies to blocker deviations. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives such as reject_event, review_event, or respond_intervention, nor does it state when not to use it.

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