equivalence_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that evidence is mandatory and that confirmation is gated. However, it is silent on whether recording an existing pair overwrites, errors, or duplicates, and on what the call returns — meaningful gaps for an unaannotated mutation tool.

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 action and scope, with the exclusivity claim second. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing routing information.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 31% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It never explains the identity fields needed to pair the two functions or what a successful recording produces, leaving most of the calling contract undocumented.

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 31% across 13 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It echoes only the evidence/confirm requirements already stated in the schema descriptions and says nothing about the undocumented required fields (n64Name, n64Address, ps2Name, ps2Address, recordedBy) or the optional file/sha256/workspace fields.

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 and resource ('Record a CONFIRMED N64<->PS2 function equivalence') with the scope qualifier 'mandatory evidence'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by asserting exclusivity ('Only this tool can mark equivalence as confirmed'), which separates it from equivalence_list and compare_functions.

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 exclusivity claim gives a clear routing rule: use this when an equivalence must be marked confirmed rather than merely listed or compared. It stops short of naming prerequisites such as first running compare_functions or port_validate_translation to obtain evidence, and gives no explicit when-not guidance.

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