dhp_record_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: first-write-wins idempotency and the meaning of the recorded=true/false return. It omits auth/permission needs and where the effect is stored, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the idempotency constraint and return contract. No filler.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, yet the description does correctly summarize the recorded flag. However, with 0% schema coverage and a nested 'result' object, the meaning of three of four inputs is left unaddressed.

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 0% with four required parameters, so the description must compensate for all of them. It only explains step_id; handoff_id, worker_id, and the free-form 'result' object are left entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Record a side effect by step_id') and its idempotent semantics, which separates it from siblings like dhp_effect_done. It does not explicitly name the sibling it must be distinguished from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical 'do NOT re-fire the effect' gives a clear when-not rule and the semantics imply this is the checkpoint-recording step, but no alternative tool (e.g. dhp_effect_done) or prerequisite conditions are named. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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