sigmodx_log_invoice_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavior (client-side hashing for data privacy), but omits details like side effects, required permissions, success/failure responses, or persistence guarantees.

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 sentences, both essential: the first states purpose, the second adds an important behavioral constraint. No unnecessary words.

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 logging tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral trait. It is mostly complete, but lacks information on what happens after logging (e.g., attestation confirmation or errors).

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%, and each parameter has a clear schema description. The tool description adds no additional per-parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: logging invoice approval decisions for cryptographic attestation, with specific decision types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on invoices, though not explicitly contrasting with other log 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (when an AI agent approves, rejects, or escalates an invoice). However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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