create_decision_lineage_receipt

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create' and 'traces', but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or required context (e.g., existence of decision artifact). It does not mention return value or validation behavior.

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 very concise—two sentences that front-load the action and add context. No unnecessary words. Slightly more detail could improve it but it's efficient.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, enums, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return behavior, validation rules, or the meaning of key fields like 'lineageCompleteness' and 'contributingSources'. More context is needed for correct invocation.

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). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. With low coverage, description should compensate, but it does not explain any of the seven parameters, especially the complex 'contributingSources' object.

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 its purpose: tracing data sources that influenced a decision. It uses specific verbs and resource name, differentiating from sibling tools like 'create_access_receipt' or 'create_derivation_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 implies when to use it (for logging decision lineage) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or context needed.

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