record_support

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that the record is appended 'as a new line in the log', implying append-only, non-overwriting behavior. However it says nothing about permissions, idempotency, duplicate verdicts, or what happens if the referenced seq is invalid.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by one clarifying sentence about what the tool does not do. No filler, though the line-broken prose is slightly looser than necessary for a three-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the append-to-log behavior is stated. But for a mutating tool with zero annotations, the description leaves permission requirements, error handling, and duplicate/conflicting verdict behavior unaddressed.

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 100%, and the schema already documents seq, support, and by (including the enum values). The description only echoes the 'who gave it' idea, adding no format, constraint, or interpretation beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it records a support verdict about an evidence line, and it clarifies the semantics of 'support' as a verdict given by someone rather than computed. It implicitly separates itself from verification-style siblings (check_quote, verify_log) by stressing that litcheck computes no verdict, though it never names a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'litcheck computes no support verdict itself; this stores one that was given' tells the agent this is the write path for an externally-supplied verdict, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the siblings.

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