compute-ledger__record_inventory

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses append-only behavior and idempotency on inventory_id. However, it does not describe response format, authentication needs, rate limits, or effects on other data. Partial coverage.

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 sentences with no wasted words: contextual header, main action, and key constraints. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Efficient and readable.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basis but lacks clarity on what 'content_digest' refers to, expected output, and prerequisites (e.g., factor pack version). Adequate but with notable gaps.

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%. The description adds meaning for mass_g (exact integer grams), content_digest, and factor_pack_digest (bare lowercase SHA-256 hex), and notes idempotency on inventory_id. Other parameters (agent_id, source_ids, factor_pack_version) are not described. Partially compensates for low coverage.

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 action 'Record an audited GHG inventory' and specifies the resource (GHG inventory) and location ('separate append-only chain'). It distinguishes from sibling read tools like compute-ledger__get_inventory and compute-ledger__list_inventories, emphasizing write and idempotency.

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 use for recording inventories but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like compute-ledger__get_inventory or compute-ledger__record_work. No guidance on prerequisites or contexts where this tool should be avoided.

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