create_derivation_receipt

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

The description discloses that the receipt is signed and supports multi-hop lineage and break markers, adding context beyond the bare name. However, with no annotations, it does not explain side effects, permissions, signing mechanics, or error behavior expected of a create 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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose; no filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema and no annotations place the burden on the description to explain return values, side effects, and use context. With 9 parameters and related sibling tools, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in what the receipt contains, what 'signed' means operationally, and how it differs from similar lineage tools.

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?

Description indirectly enriches parameters by explaining the domain ('multi-hop lineage' clarifies parentArtifacts chaining; 'break markers' maps to breakReason/externalBoundaryBreak), and schema coverage is moderate at 56%. But it does not explicitly detail any parameter semantics or required fields.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Create' and identifies resource 'signed derivation receipt' with scope 'tracking how data was transformed' and 'Multi-hop lineage with break markers.' This makes the primary function clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish from similar siblings like create_decision_lineage_receipt or create_artifact_provenance.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus create_decision_lineage_receipt, create_chained_governance_block, or other receipt/provenance tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided; only an implied use case.

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