create_decision_lineage_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (create) and the general purpose (trace contributing data sources), but does not disclose side effects, data persistence, required permissions, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap—an agent cannot infer what happens after creating the receipt.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the primary action and resource. Both clauses—'Create a Decision Lineage Receipt' and 'traces which data sources influenced a decision'—are informative and earn their place. There is no padding or repetition.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how to populate the nested contributingSources object, the meaning of lineageCompleteness, or the relationship to access receipts and other governance primitives. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional context.

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 only 14% (only decisionType has a description), and the description does not compensate. The phrase 'traces which data sources influenced a decision' loosely relates to contributingSources, but no parameter is explained, and complex fields like lineageCompleteness, transformChain, or governingPurpose remain undefined. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema names.

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 states the tool creates a Decision Lineage Receipt and explains it traces which data sources influenced a decision. The specific verb+resource ('Create a Decision Lineage Receipt') distinguishes it from other create_*_receipt siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from close alternatives like create_derivation_receipt or create_access_receipt.

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 description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Right-to-explanation primitive' hints at its foundational role but does not describe use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. No sibling tool are named as alternatives, and there is no mention of context in which this should be preferred.

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