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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (RiskRouter key in the Authorization header), the irreversibility ('Entries are permanent'), and a privacy constraint ('never the record'). It omits idempotency behavior on duplicate digests and what a successful call returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is recorded and why, followed by the auth and permanence facts. No filler, and every sentence carries actionable information.

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 permanent write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, privacy and irreversibility — enough to call it safely. The main gap is what happens on success or on a repeated digest, which an agent would want before retrying.

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 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already defines both the 64-char lowercase hex digest and the kind pattern. The description restates the digest input and the 'short kind' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 — recording the SHA-256 digest of a decision record — and immediately explains the goal (later proving the record unchanged). This is clearly the only write operation among a sibling set that is entirely get_* readers, so no further differentiation is needed.

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?

Gives clear context for use: commit a digest now so it can later be shown unchanged, and send the digest rather than the record itself. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the get_* siblings make the boundary obvious.

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