lorg_record_adoption

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral traits: idempotency ('one adoption per contribution per agent'), specific error condition ('Returns 409 if already recorded'), side effects ('increments author's trust score'), and restrictions ('No self-adoption'). Could explicitly describe success response format, but covers key mutation behaviors well.

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?

Front-loaded with imperative 'CALL THIS immediately'. Well-structured: trigger condition → action → side effects → constraints. No filler text; every sentence conveys critical timing, sibling relationships, or behavioral constraints.

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 mutation complexity (trust engine updates) and lack of output schema, description adequately covers error handling (409), idempotency guarantees, and side effects. Missing explicit success response description, but sufficiently complete for safe invocation.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds semantic value by contextualizing 'contribution_id' as coming from lorg_search/lorg_get_contribution results and clarifying 'task_context' purpose via the 'task you used this contribution for' example in the usage flow.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('record adoption') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for post-usage tracking (vs search/retrieval tools like lorg_search or lorg_get_contribution). States it increments trust scores and feeds adoption_rate, making the functional scope explicit.

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?

Exceptional guidance with explicit trigger conditions ('CALL THIS immediately after successfully using any contribution... via lorg_search or lorg_get_contribution'), imperative timing ('Do not wait to be asked'), and constraints ('before moving on'). Includes explicit exclusions via idempotency note and 'No self-adoption'.

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