Record an Authorized Outcome

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

With annotations providing no positive behavioral hints, the description carries the disclosure burden and is quite explicit: it consumes an authorization, reconciles reserved cost, and appends a tamper-evident outcome. This signals mutation, consumption of a limited resource, and append-only integrity, though it stops short of describing failure modes or validation 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler and front-loaded action verbs. Every phrase contributes a distinct behavioral element: consuming authorization, reconciling cost, and appending evidence.

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?

The schema is rich and an output schema is reported, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks explicit lifecycle guidance such as requiring a prior livingstack.authorize_action call or a valid session, and it does not address when to choose this tool over related siblings.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description adds useful context by tying 'reserved cost' to actual_cost_usd and 'typed evidence references' to evidence_refs/evidence_types, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 specific domain verbs ('consume', 'reconcile', 'append') and resources ('prior authorization', 'reserved cost', 'outcome'), making it clear this tool records the result of an authorized action. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like authorize_action or session_status.

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 the tool is used after an authorized action has been attempted, but it never explicitly states when to call it or when to prefer a sibling tool. It does not mention alternatives such as verify_release or check_claim, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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