add_principal_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Add' which implies a write operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or rate limits. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 concise with two short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no unnecessary text. Every sentence adds value, though more detail could have been included without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'three-way divergence reporting' means, what the parameters represent, or what the tool returns. An AI agent would have significant gaps in understanding how to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'principal's perspective' and 'three-way divergence reporting' but does not explain the four required parameters (outcome_id, observed_outcome, outcome_class, divergence_score). The agent cannot infer parameter meaning from the description alone.

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 action ('Add principal's perspective to an outcome record') and the purpose ('Enables three-way divergence reporting'). It provides a specific verb and resource, making the tool's function understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_outcome_record' which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Given the large number of sibling tools, this omission makes selection harder for an AI agent.

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