team_record_execution

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing that these are self-reported observations rather than authenticated runtime telemetry, which tells the agent the data is untrusted. It also flags the integrity rule (never fabricate runtimeRef/success) and a state-transition ordering constraint for confirm. What it omits is failure/concurrency behavior, e.g. what happens when expectedRevision is stale.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the caveats, with essentially no filler. Slight loss because the action-precondition sentence is compressed to the point of ambiguity about which action it constrains.

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 13-parameter, 5-required mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description leaves most of the calling contract unstated: no per-action parameter requirements, no revision/optimistic-concurrency semantics, and no notion of what a successful record returns.

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% across 13 parameters, so the description carries the whole burden and largely does not: it mentions only runtimeRef and the confirm action. Terms like expectedRevision, evidence, nativeIdSource, artifacts, hostId, and spawnCallId are never explained, and there is no indication of which fields are required per action.

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?

"Record a real lead spawn receipt, worker start/result, or parent-collected result" gives a concrete verb plus the resource types it covers, and the action enum reinforces the scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like team_record_workflow or team_report_member by its focus on execution lifecycle receipts, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"confirm completes the task only after worker report and collection" is a real precondition for one action, and "Never invent runtimeRef or success" sets a usage constraint. But there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over team_report_member, team_request_execution, or team_record_workflow, and no mapping of which action to use at which lifecycle stage.

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