design_record_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Bind') but does not state consequences, reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. It also fails to disclose what happens to existing records or whether the operation is idempotent. This leaves significant uncertainty for an agent.

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 a single, compact sentence that leads with the core action and resource. There is no redundant phrasing, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's function. Every word contributes to understanding the primary purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical operational context: what inputs are expected (parameter meanings), how they interrelate, and any workflow prerequisites. Given the tool has four required parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid call without further elaboration.

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 must explain the parameters. It only mentions 'passed JSON, Markdown, and PNG evidence,' which hints at the evidence_paths_json parameter but does not map it explicitly. It completely omits design_id, model_path, and validation_report_path, leaving their roles unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 uses the specific verb 'Bind' and clearly states the action: linking an exact FCStd hash to evidence files (JSON, Markdown, PNG). It specifies the resource and the operation, and it is distinct from sibling tools that deal with design lifecycle events rather than result recording. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, sequencing with other design tools, or exclusions. An agent has to infer that this is used after validation produces evidence, but no explicit context is given.

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