Charlie: I did it

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, consistent with a write operation. The description adds that the tool persists to a local ledger and rescans to resolve the title, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: core action, side effect, and secondary effect. No redundant or unnecessary wording. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

The description covers the core action and side effects but lacks detail on prerequisites (e.g., existence of a prior scan), error handling, and parameter details for mode/note/repo. An output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values, but parameter semantics remain insufficient.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions toil_id and implies who, but does not describe 'mode', 'note', or 'repo'—three of five parameters. The meaning of these parameters remains opaque, failing the high burden.

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 the action (record clearance), the resource (toil identified by toil_id), and the side effect (rescans). It distinguishes from sibling tools like charlie_scan_toil (scan) and charlie_ledger (ledger inspection).

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 implies the usage context (recording clearance of toil) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings. It is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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