record_workflow_improvement_delivery_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the server enforces event order and automatically requires rollback on regressions. However, it does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, error behavior, or what happens when event order is violated.

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 with no filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core action, and the second adds important server-side behavior. Every sentence 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with zero parameter descriptions and no annotations, this is too thin. The agent is left guessing exact event_type values, the JSON shape for evidence, how to get a valid delivery_id, and how this relates to sibling tools like start_workflow_improvement_delivery or get_workflow_improvement_delivery.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate for it. The stage list (approved branch, draft PR, CI, staging, canary, rollback) hints at possible event_type values, but it never explains the 'evidence' format, the 'rationale' field, or what 'delivery_id' refers to. An agent cannot confidently construct valid inputs from the description alone.

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 says 'Advance approved branch, draft PR, CI, staging, canary, or rollback evidence.' This identifies the action (advancing/recording evidence) and lists the delivery stages, so the agent can roughly infer it records workflow improvement delivery events. However, 'advance evidence' is vague, does not explicitly say 'record an event,' and gives no distinction from sibling workflow tools.

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 second sentence implies usage context: the server enforces event order and automatically requires rollback when metrics regress, suggesting the agent should call this tool in sequence and record rollback evidence when thresholds fail. But there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites like obtaining a delivery_id.

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