workflow_record_accessibility_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses very little. It implies a write operation but does not state whether recordings are append-only or overwrite prior results, whether FAIL outcomes trigger follow-up actions, what permissions are required, or whether evidenceNotes are mandatory.

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 well-formed sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise-with-completeness.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on 4 parameters needs substantially more text than one sentence. An agent lacks the information needed to call it correctly, particularly which result values mean what and what evidenceNotes must contain.

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% across 4 parameters (taskId, result, wcagLevel, evidenceNotes), so the description must compensate and does not. Only the word 'WCAG' loosely gestures at wcagLevel; the PASS/FAIL/MANUAL_REVIEW_REQUIRED enum, the AA default, and the role of evidenceNotes are all left unexplained.

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'), resource ('WCAG accessibility check result') and scope ('for a task'), and the WCAG qualifier distinguishes it from lookalike siblings such as workflow_record_manual_e2e and workflow_record_tagging_result. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name which sibling it supersedes.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related recording tools (workflow_record_manual_e2e, workflow_record_tagging_result) an agent must choose between. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.

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