record_disclosure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by revealing that the shown content is 'stored as a digest plus its length' and that the record goes into an 'action ledger', giving insight into storage semantics. Yet it omits details on side effects, reversibility, or return values, so transparency is partial.

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 with no filler. The core action and storage detail are front-loaded, followed by a compact explanation of the kind values and the agent/principal context. Each clause contributes information, making it dense but efficient. It could be slightly tightened but is well structured.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and the relatively high parameter count (7), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, storage behavior, and usage timing. However, it does not mention the return value or error conditions, and the 'another Art. 50 case' kind value is vague. Still, for a record-type tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 each parameter. It does so for most: session, shown, channel, kind (with three explicit cases), agent, and principal. The only parameter left unexplained is 'locale', which is not mentioned. Overall, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not fully cover all parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Record an EU AI Act Art. 50 disclosure in the action ledger', and then details the exact scenario (user shown content in a channel) and the fields involved. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling record tools like record_oversight and record_incident, which focus on different event types.

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 provides context on when to use the tool ('as the Commission's Art. 50 guidelines ask for at each new interaction'), implying it should be used whenever an Art. 50 disclosure is made. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity among the many record_* siblings.

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