record_responsibilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'record' implies a write operation, but the description does not specify whether it is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing data, or any side effects or permission requirements. It focuses on the data structure rather than behavioral traits.

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 that front-loads the purpose and then provides parameter details. It is not overly verbose given the complexity, but it packs many details into one block, which could be structured with line breaks for readability. Still, it is efficient and earns its length.

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 9 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the main semantic parameters but leaves several unexplained and does not address return values, errors, or preconditions. For a compliance recording tool, more detail on constraints (e.g., required fields, validation) would be valuable. It is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for full understanding.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions for parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so extensively for core parameters: explains the structure of 'parties' with allowed roles and the constraint that one party must carry provider obligations, describes 'trigger' values, maps 'cooperation' items, and clarifies 'agreement_ref' and 'agreement_sha256'. However, it omits explanation for 'actor', 'system', 'ts', and 'not_to_be_changed_into_high_risk', which are left to inference.

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 begins with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Record who carries which obligations along the value chain', and explicitly references the EU AI Act Art. 25, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like 'record_oversight' or 'record_lifecycle' by its specific focus on responsibilities.

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 states the specific legal context (Art. 25) that triggers its use, which provides clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice over similar recording tools.

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