record_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful behavioral context: entries are hash-chained and Ed25519-signed, and tampering downstream is detectable. It omits the practical implications an agent needs — that the write is permanent/append-only, and that a sensitive private key is required — but the security model is unusually well disclosed for a no-annotation 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?

Two tight sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded and the security rationale follows immediately, earning its place by explaining why the tool exists.

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 5-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the integrity model but not the return value — an agent cannot tell whether it receives a hash, sequence number, or the entry itself. It also doesn't clarify that the appended entry is irreversible or what happens if the signature fails, leaving notable gaps for a write tool.

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%, so all five parameters, including the privateKey base64 format and metadata JSON string, are already documented. The description adds only indirect meaning by tying signing to the private key and 'action' to ledger entries, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Append a signed action to the tamper-proof agent ledger.' That clearly distinguishes it from verify_ledger and audit_log by direction (write vs read). It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Use is implied by 'append ... to the ledger' and by the schema note that agentId comes from register_agent, which hints at the precondition of registering first. However, it never says when to choose this over audit_log or verify_ledger, and no explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given in the description itself.

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