track_action

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, aligning with the recording action. The description adds the behavioral detail that session actions expire after one hour, which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences containing all necessary information: purpose with examples and expiration behavior. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential behaviors. It lacks mention of return format or error handling, but the expiration note adds completeness. Adequate for a straightforward recording tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for actionId (e.g., figma_verified) that are not in the schema. Metadata guidance is minimal but present.

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 'Record a verification action in the current session' with specific examples like 'figma_verified or tests_passed'. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings that focus on feedback or approvals.

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 usage for recording verification actions but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool vs. alternatives like approve_protected_action or capture_feedback. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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