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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a create operation producing a chained SHA-256 record and describes the return payload (decision_id and chain hash), but says nothing about immutability, idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens on failure.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, mechanism, and return value, with the core action front-loaded. No filler, though the final sentence partly restates the first.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it creates and roughly what it returns. It is missing the behavioral details an agent would need to call it safely, such as whether records are append-only, whether duplicate submissions are rejected, and any auth requirements.

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 schema fully documents all 10 parameters including the evidence_level enum and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond the schema, which is acceptable given that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Records an AI execution as a Decision Proof Unit (DPU)', naming the artifact and its cryptographic hash-chain nature. It is implicitly distinguishable from the verify/get/export siblings, but that differentiation is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.

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?

No indication of when this tool should be used versus the siblings (proof_verify, proof_get, proof_chain_verify), and no prerequisites such as whether a prior decision step is required. The phrase 'records an AI execution' loosely implies post-decision logging, but nothing explicit is offered.

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