contribute_trace

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

Beyond the minimal readOnlyHint:false annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions creating SUPERSEDES relationships (linking behavior), defines lifecycle management via review_after (re-validation scheduling), and explains watch_condition for staleness detection. However, it omits details about what constitutes a valid trace or merge conflict behavior.

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?

Uses an efficient docstring structure: single-sentence purpose statement followed by Args block. Every parameter description earns its place with type hints and examples. No redundancy with the schema or annotations. Zero wasted words.

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 (per context signals), the description appropriately focuses on inputs and behavior. It covers the submission workflow, lifecycle management, and versioning relationships comprehensively for a knowledge base contribution tool. Minor gap: could explicitly state that this creates a persistent record requiring the three mandatory fields.

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 fully compensates by documenting all 7 parameters with specific semantics and examples: tags include examples (python, fastapi), review_after shows ISO format, supersedes_trace_id explains UUID purpose, and watch_condition clarifies human-readable conditions. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 opens with 'Submit a new trace to the CommonTrace knowledge base' providing a specific verb (Submit), resource (trace), and target system (CommonTrace). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like amend_trace (updates existing), get_trace (retrieval), and vote_trace (rating).

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 implies creation vs. amendment through the word 'new' and distinguishes from amend_trace implicitly, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use contribute_trace versus amend_trace or whether traces can be deleted. The supersedes_trace_id parameter hints at replacement workflows but isn't framed as usage guidance.

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