record_spend_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the ledger is append-only, that no external calls are made, and that the tool cannot authorize or block spend – all essential behavioral traits that go beyond the tool's name.

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 concise, two sentences, with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then provides critical behavioral exclusions, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and is supplemented by an output schema. However, the lack of parameter semantics and explicit usage guidance prevents it from being fully complete for a tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations.

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 the description does not explain any parameters. While 'amount_usd' and 'vendor' are self-explanatory, 'actor' and 'purpose' are ambiguous (e.g., who is the actor and what exactly is recorded in purpose). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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 specifies the action ('Append one spend-intent record') and the resource ('append-only ledger'). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings by emphasizing that it only records intent and does not execute, authorize, or block spend – a unique purpose among the given sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to log an intent to spend) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The phrase 'never calls a vendor... cannot authorize or block a spend' hints at boundaries but lacks direct guidance.

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