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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that run_id can be omitted for server allocation (create vs update), but does not discuss idempotency, authorization, or side effects like overwriting. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Covers main purpose and key parameters but misses important details: does not mention that the tool can update existing runs via run_id, nor what the response contains (e.g., returns a run ID). With no output schema, description should provide more guidance.

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 descriptions for all 7 parameters. Description summarizes parameters (task, status, artifacts) but adds no new meaning beyond what schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it logs an agent run to a provenance store, capturing task, status, artifacts, and cross-platform identity. Distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on logging runs for audit, which is distinct from other drive_* actions like read, write, search, etc.

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?

Provides context by stating it is used for retrospective context retrieval and team-wide audit. Clearly implies when to use but does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives.

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