report_grant_milestonePersist outcome metrics and evidence for an existing AFA Proof Grant. Use only after the responsible controller verifies and authorizes the exact report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes | A stable unique key reused for retries of this exact report. | |
| controller_authorized | Yes | True only after the controller explicitly authorizes this exact report. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not required to restate that. It adds the requirement for controller authorization and 'existing' grant, but does not elaborate on what destructive effects might occur or any side effects. This is moderate additional context beyond annotations.
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 two short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence starts with the action verb 'Persist' and immediately conveys the core purpose, making it highly concise and front-loaded.
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?
Given the annotations (destructive, readOnly false) and the presence of a nested report object, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is persisted, the authorization requirement, and the fact that the grant is existing. It does not cover retry/idempotency details, but that is already specified in the idempotency_key schema description. No output schema exists, but return values are not critical for this kind of tool.
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 already provides descriptions for idempotency_key and controller_authorized, covering 67% of parameters. The description mentions 'outcome metrics and evidence,' which loosely maps to the report object's required fields, but it does not explicitly explain each parameter or nested structure. Since schema coverage is moderate, the description adds marginal semantic value.
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 'Persist outcome metrics and evidence for an existing AFA Proof Grant' clearly states the action (persist), the resource (outcome metrics/evidence for a grant), and the specificity (existing AFA Proof Grant). It is distinctly different from sibling tools like 'submit_agent_pitch' or 'check_pitch_eligibility', so purpose is unambiguous.
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 phrase 'Use only after the responsible controller verifies and authorizes the exact report' provides an explicit precondition and clear context. It does not call out alternatives, but the specialized nature of the tool and the distinct sibling names make alternative use cases clear implicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct: pitch lifecycle (check, validate, submit, report) vs. capital/resources discovery (get, search, open). Slight overlap between get_live_capital_opportunity, get_open_capital_opportunities, and search_live_capital_opportunities, but descriptions clarify difference between get (specific record) vs search (general) vs open (current grants). Could be clearer with verbs like 'get_opportunity_by_id'.
Follows consistent verb_noun pattern: check_, get_, search_, validate_, submit_, report_ with clear objects (pitch, capital_opportunity, resource, milestone). Minor inconsistency: 'get_open_capital_opportunities' (adjective) vs 'search_live_capital_opportunities' (adjective) but they are distinguishable. Mixed use of 'opportunity' vs 'opportunities' is fine.
9 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool has a distinct role in the two core domains (pitch management and resource discovery). No redundancy or bloat; count is appropriate for the scope.
Covers pitch lifecycle (existence, validation, submission, milestone reporting) and resource discovery (search, get, live opportunities). Missing obvious update/delete operations for pitches or milestones; no 'delete_pitch' or 'update_pitch'. Also lacks a tool to list all venture resources without search (but search likely covers). Minor gaps but core workflows are covered.