work_record_context

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Attach' implies a mutation or association, but the description does not say whether it overwrites existing links, whether the ContextReceipt must already exist, what happens if the exact WorkScope is missing, or what the tool returns.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves important semantic gaps that could have been addressed in the same space.

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 no annotations, 0% parameter documentation coverage, a nested input object, and a large sibling tool set, this description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It provides the core verb but omits required parameter semantics, output behavior, and selection context.

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 project, receipt, agent_id, or session_id. It mentions ContextReceipt and WorkScope but never explicitly maps them to the input parameters, leaving the required receipt's expected structure entirely unspecified.

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 states a specific action ('attach') with clear resources ('ContextReceipt', 'WorkScope'), so it is not a tautology. However, it relies on unexplained capitalized domain terms and does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related work_record_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_context_receipt, render_context_receipt, work_record_memory, or work_record_execution. No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are provided.

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