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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Record', implying a write operation, but does not explain side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens after recording (e.g., stored where, any triggers). The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include context without losing conciseness.

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 lack of output schema and the simplicity of the action (recording a reason), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'Porter', expected input formats, or any relations to other entities. For a tool with 5 parameters, more context would improve completeness.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter details beyond what is in the schema. For instance, npub and dpop_token are undocumented in the schema and not mentioned in the description. This meets the baseline for medium coverage but does not add value.

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 states the action 'Record' and the context 'why the Porter rejected an issue'. It indicates the tool's purpose without ambiguity, though it assumes domain knowledge about 'Porter'. The name itself distinguishes it from siblings like cypher_route_rejection.

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 guidelines on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, postconditions, or scenarios where this tool should be chosen over similar tools like cypher_route_rejection.

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