team_append_record

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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive/non-openWorld; the description adds real behavioral context: idempotent retry via recordId and a persistent 'labeled reported' provenance marker on all content. It omits error/failure behavior and whether records can be amended or removed later, which matters for an append-style mutation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before constraints, and every clause carries information (scope, idempotency, privacy, labeling). Slightly dense but no filler.

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 purpose, idempotency, and privacy boundaries adequately for a write tool with no output schema. Given 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage with mandatory fields like evidence, the description is not complete enough to guarantee a correct first invocation.

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 0% and 7 of 8 parameters are required, yet the description only touches recordId (idempotency). Mandatory fields like evidence, nodeKind/nodeId, boardId, role, and observedAt are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at required semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Append ... work record') and sharply delimits it from a native transcript. However, with siblings like team_record_workflow and team_record_execution present, it never explains how an agent-reported record differs from those sibling recording tools, so differentiation is only partial.

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 gives exclusionary guidance ('not a native transcript', don't collect hidden reasoning, credentials, private session files), which is useful. But it never names an alternative tool or states positive conditions for choosing this over team_record_workflow / team_import_thread_page among 15 siblings, so the routing is only implied.

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