blekline_log_governance_event

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavior context: it is metadata-only and does not store raw prompt content. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the action and target, the second adds a critical constraint, earning its place.

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 five undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It provides some context (metadata-only, no raw content) but fails to explain parameter purposes, return values, or when to use the tool relative to similar siblings, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 explain parameter meanings, but it does not mention any of the five parameters (kind, action, platform, riskTier, entitiesMasked). The description only states the tool's general behavior, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema.

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 it writes a metadata-only governance audit event, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool 'blekline_emit_event' beyond the 'governance' qualifier.

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 implies this is for governance audit logging with the 'governance audit event' phrasing, and the 'Does not store raw prompt content' hints at when to choose this over alternatives. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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