baseline_record_change

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

Annotation Contradiction: the description explicitly says 'Writes ONLY local metadata' and 'Record an operator change-log entry', which is a side-effecting write, while annotations set readOnlyHint=true. Although the description is otherwise transparent about file path, owner-only access, and no OT device write, the contradiction requires a score of 1.

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 well-structured with a purpose line, safety note, behavioral explanation, args, return, and example. It is relatively long, but each section provides necessary domain context and the [READ][risk=low] prefix front-loads key information.

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 is highly complete: it names the local metadata file, explains why no OT device write occurs, describes the return dict, gives an example, and explains the impact on baseline_learn. Since there is no output schema, explicitly documenting the return format is especially valuable.

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 burden. The Args section clarifies 'tag' as the process tag and 'note' as what changed, with concrete examples ('line1.temp', 'setpoint 60→70C'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 clearly states 'Record an operator change-log entry for a tag (local only)' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like baseline_learn by explaining that a recorded change marks a regime boundary and that baseline_learn uses only samples after the latest change.

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 explains when to use the tool (after an operator change such as a setpoint move or valve replacement) and explicitly contrasts it with baseline_learn. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' list, but the intended context is clear enough.

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