Create a redacted decision receipt

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is only a receipt-creation step, not plan execution, and the receipt is fingerprinted and credential-safe/redacted. No contradiction found between the 'create' wording and readOnlyHint, since the receipt can be interpreted as a returned artifact rather than a persisted side effect.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical 'does not execute' clarification follows immediately.

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 tool takes a complex nested plan and has no output schema, yet the description says nothing about how mode affects behavior, what the returned receipt contains, or how it should be used downstream. The input schema provides structure, but some operational context is missing.

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 description bears the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not explain 'mode' or 'plan' semantics directly. It only implicitly echoes mode values ('fixture, dry-run, or live') and refers to a generic 'plan.' The nested plan schema is rich, but the prose adds almost no parameter-level guidance.

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 ('Create'), a specific resource ('fingerprinted, credential-safe receipt'), and the applicable context ('completed fixture, dry-run, or live decision'). It also differentiates from execution/planning siblings by adding 'This does not execute the plan.'

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?

It communicates when to use the tool: after a decision has been completed in fixture, dry-run, or live mode. It also gives an exclusion ('does not execute the plan'), though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for planning or verification.

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