declare_free

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cross-tool side effect (suppressing flags in check_contacts and the delivery gate), which is real behavioral context. However, it doesn't say whether declarations persist across sessions, whether they are reversible, or what the tool returns, leaving meaningful gaps for a write-style tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and its downstream consequence with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 3-parameter tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect adequately. It falls short only on persistence/reversibility and expected return behavior, which an agent might reasonably want before calling it repeatedly.

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%, including a nuanced explanation of ends_only ('exhaust outlet, a cable whose plug is hidden'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (record) and resource (intentional separation), and immediately names its downstream consumers (check_contacts, the delivery gate), which distinguishes it from those siblings. The phrase 'the delivery gate' is undefined jargon, but the core intent — marking objects as deliberately disconnected — is inferable.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: use this when a separation is intentional so that check_contacts and the delivery gate don't flag it. It implicitly excludes unintentional separations but never states that explicitly, nor does it mention when re-declaring or clearing a declaration is needed.

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