AtlaSent — Record Execution Evaluation

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive nature is established. The description adds useful workflow context: it records the observed outcome and is explicitly not a pre-execution verification step. It does not discuss idempotency or failure behavior, but that is less critical given the clear workflow framing.

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 with no filler. The action and its relationship to the prior evaluate call are front-loaded, and the exclusion is stated succinctly.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, timing, required prior step, and key exclusion. Minor omissions include naming the exact alternative verification tool and stating return/side-effect behavior, but the schema and annotations carry the remaining load.

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 100%, and the schema already documents evaluation_id provenance, the outcome enum, and optional fields. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Record') and a clear resource ('the outcome of an execution that was permitted by a prior evaluate call'). It also distinguishes itself from related workflows by noting it does not replace pre-execution Permit Verification.

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?

Explicitly establishes when to use the tool: after an execution permitted by a prior evaluate call, to close the evidence loop. It also gives an exclusion ('does not replace pre-execution Permit Verification'), though it does not name the exact sibling tool to use instead.

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