artifact_record

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: role='baseline' is write-once (tampering refused), measurement includes tokenCost/quality for measurementRef, and sourcePath is disabled. However, it omits error behavior, idempotency, or mutation effects. Good but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences long with no fluff. Every sentence adds critical information (purpose, role behavior, sourcePath constraint, measurement structure). Highly 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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers only key aspects. It does not explain the return value or behavior for missing parameters. Adequate but incomplete for a complex tool.

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 only 20% (2 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning for role (explains values), sourcePath (disabled), and measurement (expected fields). It compensates partially but leaves many parameters (loop, name, phase, runId, newEpoch, rationale) unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Persist a raw artifact (run log, baseline copy) with a sha256 hash.' It further specifies the behavior for role='baseline' (hash-lock, write-once) and the measurement parameter for reverifiable measurementRef. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like observation_record or loop_register, which handle different aspects.

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 some context (e.g., 'sourcePath reads are disabled; pass explicit content') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. It implies usage for storing artifacts with specific roles, but lacks when-not scenarios or alternatives. Moderate guidance.

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