eds_audit_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool writes to a private history sheet, requires EDS_DA_TOKEN, supports dryRun preview, publish flag, same-day row updates, and returns the score plus change. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 dense with useful details but remains well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It covers return format, behavior, prerequisites, and related tools without redundancy. Slightly long but each sentence adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It explains the recording mechanism, return values, same-day behavior, dryRun/publish options, authentication requirement, and relationships with sibling tools. No critical missing context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning, only mentioning that 'Same audit options as eds_audit_site' implies consistent behavior. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without additional nuance.

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 tool's purpose: "Run the site audit and RECORD its scores to a history sheet" with a specific resource (Document Authoring content). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the recording aspect and mentions eds_audit_trend for trend viewing, making its role unique.

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 provides usage context: it explains the history recording, pairing with eds_audit_trend, and notes "Same audit options as eds_audit_site" to indicate similarity. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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