append_run_receipts

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds behavioral context by noting it excludes prompts, raw arguments, or credentials, implying sanitization or rejection. However, it doesn't explain what happens if such content is provided or the role of expected_revision.

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?

One clean sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Highly concise.

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 description leaves critical gaps: parameter meanings (expected_revision), the shape and constraints of receipts, and behavior when constraints are violated. Given the tool has three required parameters and an output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter semantics. run_id, receipts, and expected_revision are unexplained, especially expected_revision's purpose (likely concurrency control) and the structure of receipts items.

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 ('append') and resource ('safe live stage/tool receipts'), making the action clear. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'safe' and the exclusion of prompts/raw arguments/credentials, though it doesn't name a specific alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other run-related tools like commit_host_stage or finalize_host_run. The only implied context is appending receipts, with no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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