Record each investigation checklist item's status and a concrete note, so agents can track what is answered, partial, unresolved, or not applicable.
Record the answer to one investigation checklist item (status plus a concrete note).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes | ||
| note | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| workspace | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent update. The description adds that it records one checklist item with a concrete note, but it does not explain overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when recording the same item again.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It efficiently states the action and the two most important payload concepts.
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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It leaves required workspace semantics, enum meanings, and optional note behavior undocumented.
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 must carry parameter meaning, yet it only clarifies status and note and implies item. It omits the required workspace parameter, does not explain note optionality, and does not describe the status enum values.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Record the answer to one investigation checklist item,' and names the key payload elements status and note. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as aa_upsert_claim or aa_upsert_section.
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 action but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative sibling tool to choose instead. An agent can infer that it is for checklist answers, but there is no explicit usage policy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.