audit_log_append

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals immutability of the log, return values (risk score and transaction ID), and automatic certificate revocation for high-risk events (score >= 0.85). This is good context beyond basic logging.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, return values, and an important behavioral note.

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?

No output schema, but the description correctly states return values (risk score and transaction ID) and a key side effect (certificate revocation). With 3 parameters (including a nested object) and good schema coverage, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples for metadata (amount, currency, venue for transactions; resource_type, resource_id for data ops) and elaborates on event_type usage (e.g., 'transaction_initiated' for financial ops). This provides practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 verb 'append' and the resource 'agent's immutable audit log'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings (check_risk_score, verify_agent_scope) by focusing on recording events for traceability.

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 explicitly says when to use (voluntarily record actions like transactions, data ops, API calls) and provides specific event_type guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, though siblings are distinct.

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