amend_trace

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

The annotation readOnlyHint:false confirms this is a write operation, which 'Submit an amendment' supports. However, the description doesn't clarify the mutation semantics: whether the original trace is overwritten, versioned, or if the amendment creates a separate record. It also omits idempotency, auth requirements, or side effects.

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 well-structured with a leading action sentence followed by an Args section. Given the zero schema coverage, the parameter documentation is necessary rather than verbose. The text is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant filler.

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?

While the Args section documents all parameters adequately and output schema is present (reducing need for return value docs), the description lacks behavioral context about amendment lifecycle, validation rules, and sibling tool relationships. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps for a mutation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section carries full documentation weight and successfully explains all three parameters: trace_id (UUID), improved_solution (text content), and explanation (rationale). It provides sufficient semantic context for the agent to understand what values are expected.

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 action ('Submit an amendment'), the target resource ('existing trace'), and the intent ('improved solution'). The term 'amend' effectively distinguishes this mutating tool from sibling 'contribute_trace' (create) and 'get_trace' (read), though it doesn't explicitly articulate this contrast.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'contribute_trace' or 'vote_trace'. It fails to state prerequisites (e.g., that the trace must exist) or when amendment is preferred over creating a new trace.

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