guild_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses core side effects (creating a task, storing a receipt, writing an attestation) and mentions authentication and hashing, but it does not cover idempotency, failure behavior, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 verbose and repetitive, with multiple sentences restating the same ideas (e.g., 'record', 'attestation', 'ledger'). It could be trimmed to a concise statement without losing essential information, and the example at the end adds length without improving clarity.

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 does not explain return values, error conditions, or the relationship to related tools like guild_attest or guild_escrow_release. It mentions conditions for 'guild_mediated' but does not clarify how the caller would verify or act on those. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete.

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?

The schema has no descriptions, so the text compensates by explaining outcome values, rating range, the choice between deliverable and deliverable_hash, and the use of issuer_api_key for authentication. worker_id and capability are not explicitly described, but they are inferable from context, giving high but not complete coverage.

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 that the tool records a collaboration, creates a task, stores a receipt, and writes an attestation, using the specific verb 'Record'. It also positions itself as the way to build the shared record, which distinguishes it from verification or querying tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives a usage scenario ('after another agent did work for you') and an example call, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other guild_* tools or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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