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

Annotations provide only false hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an internal audit/logging side-effect rather than a user-facing operation, and that it should be the final workflow step. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but for an audit-logging tool the side-effect behavior is the most important transparency point.

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?

Two compact sentences, both information-dense. The first sentence establishes what the tool is and what it records; the second sentence adds critical usage constraints. No filler, repetition, or irrelevant context.

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 complete parameter schema and the tool's narrow role as an internal audit step, the description fully covers selection and invocation. The agent knows when to call it, why it exists, what it records, and which user actions should not trigger it. No output schema exists, but this is a side-effect logging call, so a return contract is not essential.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including nested details for sources and images. The description's mention of sources and image attributions reinforces the schema but does not add new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an internal audit step that records content provenance (sources, image attributions) for a completed generation. It uses specific language ('Records a completed generation's content provenance') and explicitly distinguishes it from user-facing actions, which separates it from the many user-facing clipform siblings.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only call it as the final step of a generation workflow you are running. It also gives a direct when-not-to-use instruction: never in response to a plain create or edit request. This is strong, unambiguous usage guidance.

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