record_attestation

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

Annotations already establish this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive operation. The description adds useful semantic context beyond annotations — that records are categorized as attested and human-reviewed — but does not disclose side effects, immutability of records, or downstream consequences on criteria satisfaction. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, and every clause earns its place — 'human-reviewed' clarifies the evidence source and 'attested rather than observed' performs critical sibling differentiation. Zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a 6-parameter write operation, the context signals are strong: all parameters are documented in the schema, an output schema exists, and annotations convey the safety profile. The description supplies the key semantic positioning. The only notable gap is that explicit routing between attestation and observational evidence tools is implied rather than stated.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's attested/observed distinction is already reflected in the schema's result parameter description ('Attested or observed outcome; unknown never satisfies a criterion'), so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb+resource pair ('Record a human-reviewed claim') and immediately differentiates this tool from observational evidence recording with 'explicitly labelled as attested rather than observed.' This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling record_file_evidence, which presumably handles observed/file-based evidence.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when a claim has undergone human review and should be categorized as an attestation. The 'rather than observed' contrast implies the alternative category of evidence, but it stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tool (record_file_evidence) or stating when-not-to-use conditions.

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