record_provenance

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals only that a record is written and returned; it says nothing about persistence, append-only/immutability semantics, whether the action is idempotent, or what permissions or ordering the hashes require. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the return behavior follows. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for an eight-parameter mutation tool rather than needlessly verbose.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain storage location, immutability guarantees, and what 'PROV record content' actually contains. None of that is present, leaving the agent under-informed for a write operation of this shape.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics for the eight parameters — notably nothing on how entity_hash_before/after relate to the recorded action or how agent_ref differs from agent_name.

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 provenance event') and anchors it to a well-known standard ('W3C PROV-O record'), which tells an agent exactly what kind of artifact is produced. It does not name any sibling tool as a contrast, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to record provenance versus when to use the governance/decision siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely from the tool name and the surrounding toolset.

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