create_audit

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds 'bounded' and 'redacted' but does not explain what these entail, such as whether the objective is stored in a modified form or what side effects occur. For a mutation tool, this lacks necessary behavioral context.

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 sentence with a clear subject-verb-object structure. It is concise and front-loaded, but the use of jargon ('bounded', 'redacted') makes it less immediately accessible, preventing a 5.

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 and basic parameter descriptions, the description fails to explain key domain terms, the purpose of an audit, or how this tool fits into the sibling workflow. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with a central creation role.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description (name, objective, project_root). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying how 'objective' relates to 'redacted architecture objective'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Create' clearly identifies the action, and 'audit' is the resource. The phrase 'persist its redacted architecture objective' adds scope, distinguishing it from sibling read/analysis tools. However, terms like 'bounded' and 'redacted' are ambiguous and not explained, so it falls short of a 5.

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 or prerequisites. While it's implied one must create an audit before using analysis siblings, there is no explicit mention of workflow ordering or constraints like project_root validation.

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