Record Action Receipt

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

The description adds value beyond the `destructiveHint: true` annotation by stating it 'Appends to the action-receipts log', clarifying the nature of the modification. It also lists the outcome types (diff, exit code, test result) that are recorded, providing useful behavioral context.

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, front-loading the main action and purpose in the first sentence, and stating the storage mechanism in the second. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 has 7 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose and outcome pairing. It could mention the return value (none or success) but is adequately complete for a recording tool with clear annotations and schema descriptions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides additional semantic grouping by referring to 'outcome (diff, exit code, test result)', which helps the agent understand the relationship between parameters. It does not repeat schema descriptions but adds context.

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: pairing a tracked tool call with its outcome (diff, exit code, test result) to enable lesson encoding. It specifies the action ('Pair') and the resource ('tracked tool call' with outcome), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'track_action' (which likely only tracks the action) and 'get_action_receipts' (retrieval).

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool: after a tracked tool call to record its outcome, avoiding a mere thumbs signal. It provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the purpose is clear.

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