record_run_entry

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only adds one behavioral detail: 'Each entry is hash-chained to the previous one.' This is useful but leaves out other traits like whether entries are immutable, permission requirements, or rate limits. The description carries the full burden and is only partially 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key behavioral note (hash-chaining). It is concise but packs significant detail. Some restructuring could improve clarity (e.g., separating the entry content from the requirement), but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and ensures the agent knows what an entry contains. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., success indicator or entry ID), prerequisites beyond the API key, or what happens if the run is not open. These gaps could hinder a new agent.

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%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the distinction between note and input_hash for user input, and mentioning that entry_type defaults to note. This enriches understanding of how parameters interact.

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 'append' and the resource 'one entry to an open run', specifying the content (Bidda rules, decisions, user input). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_topics or check_action_compliance, which are not recording actions.

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 mentions the requirement for a Bidda subscription key, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., consult_node, drift_check). Usage is implied by the recording nature, but no exclusions or comparative context are provided.

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