Record undisclosed risky behavior

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

Annotations only tell the agent this writes to a closed-world target; the description adds the substantive preconditions (no doc sentence may promise otherwise, must belong to a specific sentence) that govern a valid record. It stops short of saying what recording does downstream — dedup, ID returned, effect on the audit — so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and only three sentences long; the examples and the sibling routing each earn their space. The closing instruction 'Never attach this to an unrelated sentence' is slightly oblique since no sentence parameter exists in the schema, costing a point.

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 7-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual bar for behavior/docs_searched but omits what a successful call produces and how audit_id or signal should be sourced. Adequate to call correctly in principle, but an agent must infer the plumbing from the schema alone.

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 71%, and the description adds real meaning for two of the trickiest fields: what counts as 'behavior' (with concrete examples) and the evidentiary standard behind docs_searched ('the docs never mention... no doc sentence promises otherwise'). It says nothing about audit_id, severity, or signal, leaving those entirely to the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('record something risky the code does that the docs never mention') with three concrete examples of qualifying behavior. It also names the sibling elliot_record_claim and the exact condition that separates the two, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (undocumented behavior with no doc promise), when to use the alternative instead ('If a doc sentence does promise otherwise, use elliot_record_claim on that sentence'), and an exclusion ('Never attach this to an unrelated sentence').

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