Track Action

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

Description adds expiry information beyond annotations ('Session actions expire after one hour'), but does not elaborate on the destructive hint (e.g., whether it overwrites previous actions, irreversibility, or required permissions). Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true without further 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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. Purpose is front-loaded, and the expiry detail is a necessary addition. Every 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 two parameters, one required, no output schema, the description covers core purpose, examples, and time-bound behavior. It assumes understanding of 'current session' (reasonable given sibling tools) but does not explain return value or error conditions. Acceptable for a simple 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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description supplements with examples for actionId (figma_verified, tests_passed), adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Verification action ID'. Metadata parameter is not further elaborated.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Record' and resource 'verification action in the current session' with concrete examples (figma_verified, tests_passed). It distinguishes from sibling tools like record_action_receipt by emphasizing session scope.

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?

Implies use for session-scoped verification actions with expiry, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like record_action_receipt. No explicit 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.