add_result

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: the requirement to hold the claim and the workflow timing for auditability. It could mention error behavior if the claim isn't held, but this is adequate.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the second adds crucial timing and prerequisite information. Every word earns its place.

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?

With a simple scope, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, timing, and prerequisites. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. It could have briefly mentioned idempotency, but the schema already handles that.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description's mention of 'what you did, what you produced, where it lives' reinforces the note parameter but doesn't add new semantic details beyond schema. No additional meaning for task_id or idempotency_key is provided.

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 action: 'Attach your output to a task' with specifics about content ('what you did, what you produced, where it lives'). This distinguishes it from sibling add_comment by focusing on work output rather than general commentary.

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?

Provides explicit timing ('Post this before moving the task to done') and a prerequisite ('Requires that you hold the claim'). Does not explicitly name alternatives, but the strong contextual guidance makes appropriate usage clear.

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