create_derivation_receipt

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'signed' and 'multi-hop lineage with break markers' but fails to explain side effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens when externalBoundaryBreak is true. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 sentences with no redundancy, efficiently conveying core purpose and a key feature. Every word is necessary.

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?

With 9 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover return values, error handling, and behavioral context. It only provides high-level purpose, leaving many operational details unspecified, making it incomplete for correct agent 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 56%, meaning many parameters already have descriptions. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters like lineageConfidence or breakReason interact, nor does it clarify the 'multi-hop' aspect with specific parameters.

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 verb 'create' and the resource 'derivation receipt', specifies it tracks data transformation, and mentions multi-hop lineage with break markers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_access_receipt or create_decision_lineage_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like create_artifact_provenance or create_decision_lineage_receipt are not referenced.

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