Record Validation Disposition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the record is durable, that it must happen after a specific step, that finalize must be run again afterward, and that an accept is never a default. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it stops short of describing idempotency or overwrite behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose statement comes first, followed by crisp conditional requirements. Every sentence earns its place, and the line breaks make the procedural constraints easy to parse.

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 covers the essential workflow: when to record, what each method requires, and the need to finalize again. Because an output schema exists, return-value documentation is unnecessary. It is slightly incomplete regarding how optional fields like outcome_summary and decided_on relate to each method, but it is sufficient for correct main-path 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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real semantics for evaluation_run_path, outcome, and rationale by tying them to specific method values, but it leaves run_dir, method, outcome_summary, and decided_on mostly implicit, so the compensation is only partial.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair: 'Record how this run's migration was validated' plus the qualifier 'durable per run.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling record tools like record_change_decisions or record_observation by scoping it specifically to migration-validation disposition.

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 clear temporal context: 'Record AFTER the first finalize produced the validation deliverables' and then says to 'finalize again,' which tells the agent where in the workflow this tool belongs. It also gives per-method conditions, but it does not mention alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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