manual_record

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a mutating write-back that changes rule state, that it is the sole permitted path for that mutation, and that evidence (official URL or screenshot/PDF path) plus a reviewer and method are mandatory. It does not address reversibility, overwrite behavior on repeated records, or permissions, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the value constraint and the exclusivity rule. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential guardrails: allowed outcome values, mandatory evidence, and the exclusivity of this write path. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but idempotency and what happens to a previously recorded result are unstated.

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% and no parameter has an enum in the schema, so the description's statement that outcome must be exactly 'clear' or 'hit' supplies constraint information available nowhere else. It also clarifies that operator, method, and a url-or-attachment pair are jointly required, covering five of eight parameters; note, rule_id, and report_id are left to inference.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: persist a manual review result as an audit trail and write it back into the report. It also distinguishes this path from the forbidden one ('cannot directly edit the report JSON'), which helps separate it from siblings like manual_findings or build_report, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It declares a strong usage constraint — this is the only entry point through which a manual result may change rule status — which implies when the tool is required. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not condition relative to the sibling list, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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