declare_break

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses append-only behavior, permanent retention, the effect on the verdict (ok=null), the one-break-at-a-time limit, and the refusal condition when nothing is broken.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: context, action, side effects, limits, and failure conditions are all covered without redundancy. The key behavior is front-loaded with the append-only clarification following immediately.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the semantics, permanence, refusal behavior, and constraints, leaving no critical gap that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that a reason is required and references the ledger context, but it does not add materially new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: declaring a break by appending a row to one's own ledger. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by limiting scope to the agent's own ledger and by explicitly describing the append semantics and refusal behavior.

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?

It clearly implies when to use it: after verification has found a break, on the agent's own ledger, and only when something is actually broken. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope and refusal conditions provide enough guidance to select it correctly.

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