record_qms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses the supersession rule ('A later entry for the same procedure is the current one') and signed-record/keeper semantics. It omits side effects, permissions, response, and reversibility details that would fully carry that burden.

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 three sentences are packed with non-redundant information: what is recorded, field formats/semantics, update behavior, and the record's attestation purpose. No sentence restates the schema or adds filler.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most domain and field context and the versioning rule. Missing details—mainly the required actor parameter, response shape, and how ref/sha256 constraints are enforced—leave an agent with some uncertainty.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining most fields: version, owner, review_due_ts epoch seconds, aspect letters a-m, and ref/sha256 for documents. It leaves the required actor parameter unexplained and uses 'name' where the schema property is 'procedure', creating a modest mapping gap.

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 action and resource ('Record one procedure of the provider's quality management system') and lists the exact fields and regulatory basis. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as qms_register, 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 phrase 'Record one procedure...' and the AI Act Art. 17 context imply the intended use: whenever a QMS procedure entry must be recorded. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are stated relative to the many sibling tools.

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