record_notice

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: the entry records channels, carried items, and text_sha256 pinning, and it lists items not carried. However, it does not describe side effects such as immutability, duplicate handling, overwrite behavior, or permissions, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 a single dense paragraph with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the enumerations are necessary. The large lists make it heavy, but they are directly useful and organized logically by article and item category.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, this is a fairly complete definition. It covers the GDPR-specific semantics, allowed values, and article-dependent requirements. Missing details like return value or the exact meaning of actor/subject are minor given the otherwise rich context.

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 parameter documentation burden falls entirely on the description. It compensates well by enumerating valid channels, the full items list, text_sha256 semantics, and Art. 14's source/timing requirements. A few parameters like actor, subject, ts, and request_id are left mostly to inference from their names.

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 a specific action: recording that a data subject received GDPR Art. 13 or Art. 14 information. It specifies the channels, items, and text pinning, which makes the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as notice_register or record_disclosure, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a data subject was provided GDPR Art. 13/14 notice information. It also adds article-specific usage rules, such as Art. 14 requiring source and timing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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