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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral nuance: expectedVersion concurrency, blocked/failed outcomes remaining active, special roadmap completion requirements, and the specific resolved-status path for closing a dashboard finding. This substantially enriches the agent's model of the tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and each subsequent sentence contributes essential operational nuance. It is dense but not bloated, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the tool's main purpose, key preconditions, special task-type behavior, and finding-resolution semantics. It does not explain return values or error behavior, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most inbox-completion scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the input schema. It adds value for expectedVersion and details.status/summary, explaining the resolved pattern and the need for agent-reported evidence. However, it leaves idempotencyKey, sessionId, executionId, and referenceIds unaddressed, and their meaning is left to names and schema constraints.

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 opens with 'Record a task result with expectedVersion', which clearly identifies the action and object. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling inbox tools (inbox_claim, inbox_start, inbox_list), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 provides explicit conditions: 'Blocked or failed work stays active' and roadmap tasks complete only after 'published full meter advancement and confirmed linked evidence'. It also explains the resolved status behavior. However, it never names alternative tools or states when the agent should prefer a sibling, so it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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