record_skin_contact_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only says the tool requires Kiln Business and that Business adds team review and approval gates. It does not explain whether this logging action itself is review-gated, what record it creates, what happens on failure, or what is returned.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one useful sentence, but the Business-plan marketing text and upgrade link consume space without helping an agent invoke the tool correctly. It is short, but not every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only partial schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete for a write/logging tool. It should clarify gating, required field formats, and expected result, but instead focuses on plan promotion.

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?

The schema has five parameters with only 40% description coverage, and the description provides no meaning for material, exposure, outcome, notes, or design_id. Required fields like outcome and exposure are undefined in both the description and schema, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: logging an outcome for a printed part that was worn or handled. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from nearby skin-contact tools such as check_skin_contact_suitability or check_skin_contact_declaration.

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?

It implies the tool should be used after actual skin contact with a printed part has occurred. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives or prerequisites beyond the Business plan requirement.

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