Create Derivation Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description goes beyond that by naming the exact destructive consequence: any existing receipt under the same derivativeId is replaced, which is precisely the kind of overwrite semantics an agent needs before calling. It omits signing/permission prerequisites implied by 'signed'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the lineage nuance and the overwrite caveat. 'Multi-hop lineage with break markers' is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent write with 9 parameters, 56% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is thin. It never explains what 'signed' requires (keys/auth), what is returned (receipt id?), or what the confidence levels and obligation flags mean, so an agent still has significant unanswered questions before invoking.

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 coverage is 56% across 9 parameters, so several fields (breakReason, lineageConfidence, externalBoundaryBreak, isSyntheticDerivative, upstreamObligationsRetained) are undocumented or only named. The description adds essentially nothing concrete about parameters beyond the vague phrase 'break markers', leaving the meaning of the confidence enum and obligation flags to the schema 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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (signed derivation receipt) plus the subject matter (how data was transformed), so the agent knows this is a lineage/provenance write operation. It does not name or contrast with near-neighbors like create_artifact_provenance, create_decision_lineage_receipt, or resolve_lineage, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the many other receipt/lineage creation siblings in the list. The only usage-relevant information is the implicit upsert behavior ('Replaces any receipt already stored under the same derivativeId'), which tells the agent it is safe to re-call for the same id but not when this receipt is the right artifact to file.

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