mint_receipt_for_record_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that values are hashed (SHA-256) and the receipt is post-quantum, but does not mention side effects, storage, permissions, or reversibility. For a minting operation, this lacks important behavioral context.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action and scope, while the second provides additional context about hashing and CRM compatibility. Every sentence earns 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?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and a terse description. While an output schema exists, the description does not explain return behavior, prerequisites, or the meaning of policy and tenant. Given the tool's sophistication, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains old_value and new_value are SHA-256 hashes, adding meaning. However, other parameters like record_id, object_type, field, and changed_by_agent are left undefined, and the description does not clarify their formats or roles beyond the tool name.

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 tool mints a post-quantum receipt for a CRM record change, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mint_action_receipt by focusing on record changes rather than general actions, and mentions SHA-256 hashes and CRM compatibility.

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 usage for CRM record changes and says it works with any CRM, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mint_action_receipt or verify_receipt. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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