artifact_record

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that baseline role hash-locks (write-once) and sourcePath reads are disabled, but does not discuss permissions, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent beyond the baseline case.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It efficiently adds key details but could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain many parameters, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is low (20%), so description adds value. It explains the 'role' parameter's special behavior for baseline, the 'measurement' object's purpose, and the 'sourcePath' disablement. However, it doesn't explain all parameters like 'loop', 'newEpoch', or 'rationale'.

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 'Persist a raw artifact with a sha256 hash', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes the tool by mentioning role constraints and measurementRef, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'observation_record'.

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 provides usage hints: role baseline is write-once, sourcePath is disabled, and measurement should be passed. However, it lacks direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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