AtlaSent — Record Execution Evaluation

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds that it 'closes the audit loop', giving behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss idempotency or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, immediately conveys the core purpose and linkage to the evaluate tool.

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?

With 5 parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description provides essential context for the tool's role but omits details about return values or prerequisites like valid evaluation_id.

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 each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific information beyond the schema, which is acceptable. The baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'record' and the resource 'execution evaluation', and distinguishes this tool as the counterpart to a prior evaluate call. This sets it apart from sibling tools like atlasent_evaluate or atlasent_permit.

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 explicitly says to use this after a prior evaluate call that permitted an execution. It provides clear context but does not include explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives.

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