compute-ledger__record_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral info: append-only chain, idempotency on inventory_id, and data format constraints. Missing side effects, error conditions, and success response details.

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 extremely concise, two sentences that front-load the action and follow with essential format constraints. No superfluous 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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the record structure and key constraints but lacks details on success/failure responses, error scenarios, and the 'audited' qualifier's implications.

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 coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning for mass_g (exact grams), digests (SHA-256 hex), and idempotency on inventory_id. Other parameters like agent_id, source_ids, factor_pack_version remain undocumented, partially compensating but not fully.

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 the tool records an audited GHG inventory on an append-only chain. It distinguishes from sibling read/list tools like get_inventory and list_inventories by specifying the creation action.

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 usage for recording inventories but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. No mention of when not to use or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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