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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses immutability ('never changed afterwards'), the sealing model ('sealed on its own in a commit'), a privacy rule ('Text is stored only when the mandate is public'), and a repeat-safety warning ('not safe to repeat blindly'). This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then the write warning. Dense but every clause adds a distinct rule; the em-dash list of payload forms is slightly padded but not wasteful.

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 write tool with no output schema and no return-value contract to describe, the definition covers the essential semantics: what is written, immutability, privacy, and repeat hazards. Minor omissions (error/failure behavior, what a successful call returns) keep it from a 5.

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 75% and the description enriches it: it explains outcome may be text or a sha-256 (mapping to the outcome/outcome_hash pair) and confirms the public-only storage rule for text. The 'secret' parameter carries no meaning in either place, which is the remaining gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add what came of it to a mandate you recorded without an outcome') and scopes it to mandates lacking an outcome, clearly distinguishing it from sibling record_mandate, which creates the mandate. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 gives concrete preconditions: only for a mandate that has no outcome yet, only once per mandate, and only by the citizen who recorded it. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for other cases, but the constraints are clear enough to route correctly.

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