record_code_change

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 only states the action without disclosing whether records are appended or overwritten, whether the task must exist, or any validation/error behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a write operation.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the important information and gets directly to the point.

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?

With a fully described schema, the tool's inputs are clear, but the lack of behavioral context (e.g., whether this appends to a history) and absence of output schema information leaves gaps for a writing tool. For a simple recording operation, the description is minimally viable but not rich.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters such as the optional nature of diff and commitHash.

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 uses the specific verb 'record' with the resource 'code change' and contextual scope 'during task execution'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like record_decision and record_guardian_intervention, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'during task execution' implies the appropriate context for use, but no explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or which alternative tools to prefer. There is no mention of prerequisites like an active task or a comparison with get_code_changes.

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