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

Annotations already signal a destructive write, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: clearing with '', the fact that open issues override recorded results, and that recording a result clears an 'R' retest. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone would tell an agent and is fully consistent with them.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first sentence front-loads the core action and the second sentence adds high-value behavioral nuance. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple write tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description covers the important correctness hazards: clearing behavior, issue override, and retest semantics. It does not cover error cases or permissions, but those are not essential for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the status parameter by explaining what P, F, and '' mean and how recording interacts with retest, which is useful beyond the raw enum listing.

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 uses the specific verb 'Record' and identifies the exact resource: a tester's result for one check on one platform. It enumerates the valid status values and their meanings, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_check or update_check.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever recording a check result, and it explains the relationship with open issues and the 'R' retest state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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