Declare Study Holdout Use

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context beyond them: write-scope requires project-owner credentials and create:models, declaration_id idempotency mechanics, revocation of stale revision influence, and the fact that API declarations stay marked as reported. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradiction to the 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place by adding an operational constraint or clarification. Core purpose is front-loaded, followed by prerequisite steps, retry behavior, parameter conditions, and exclusions, with no 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?

Given a non-trivial six-parameter mutation with zero schema descriptions, the description covers prerequisites, auth, idempotent retry, conditional parameter requirements, validation implications, and non-goals. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and to understand follow-up obligations such as fresh validation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds: declaration_id is tied to fresh-UUID/retry semantics, source_access_id to an access event from the run, disposition and affected_revision_id to the informed_revision conditional, and reason to explaining actual use. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic guidance beyond its bare title.

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 opening phrase 'Append a submitter-reported evidence-use declaration' names a specific verb, resource, and scope, and the final sentence explicitly excludes certification/promotion duties, differentiating this from sibling study actions. It also names get_study_prediction_access as a prerequisite, which helps distinguish the read path from this write path.

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 explicit when-to-use instructions: read get_study_prediction_access first, reference an access event from this run, and use a fresh UUID reused unchanged on retry. It also states conditional usage rules for informed_revision versus other dispositions, giving clear operational guidance without requiring the agent to guess.

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