record_recommendation

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is an audit-log append, should be called only once, and must precede approval. This gives agents important ordering and idempotency context. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and front-loads the most important guidance: what to record and when. The embedded parameter notes are useful and not padded, though they slightly blur the line between description and schema documentation.

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 output schema exists and the annotations cover safety hints, the description provides the key operational context: finality, one-time invocation, and ordering before approval. It could more fully explain all parameters, but the core calling context is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies target_ids and score_call_id, but leaves summary, decision, recommended_kind, runner_up_option_id, and recommended_option_id without explicit explanation. The parameter names and enums are mostly self-descriptive, so this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 records a final recommendation or escalation to the audit log, which is a distinct, specific action. It also distinguishes timing ('before any approval') from the workflow, making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings like request_approval or confirm_order_change.

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 gives explicit usage context: call once, before any approval, and only for the final recommendation. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, but the audit-log purpose is unique enough that the main when-to-use guidance is clear.

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