Create Decision Lineage Receipt

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

The description opens with 'Create a Decision Lineage Receipt', a write operation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is the same class of inconsistency flagged in the calibration example for create_record. The description also fails to disclose what the receipt records, whether it is persisted, or what it returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition. The trailing 'Right-to-explanation primitive' fragment is terse and does add framing, though it is jargon that may not help an agent act.

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?

Against a 7-parameter, 4-required tool with a deeply nested contributingSources structure (7 required subfields each), 14% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It says nothing about how completeness is judged, what makes lineage 'broken_external', or what the created receipt identifier looks like.

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% across 7 parameters, so the schema alone leaves most inputs unexplained (decisionArtifactId, governingPurpose, transformChain, explanation are all bare). The description's mention of 'which data sources influenced a decision' loosely points at contributingSources but adds no meaning, format, or constraint for the nested source objects or the lineageCompleteness enum.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a Decision Lineage Receipt') and states what it captures ('traces which data sources influenced a decision'). That is enough to distinguish it from generic write tools. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as create_derivation_receipt, create_artifact_provenance, or resolve_lineage, which an agent would need to choose between.

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 'use this when...' guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling receipt/lineage tools. The phrase 'Right-to-explanation primitive' gestures at a regulatory context but does not tell the agent when to reach for this tool versus create_derivation_receipt or resolve_lineage.

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