record_guardian_intervention

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Record a guardian intervention' without mentioning whether this creates a new entry, is idempotent, requires task existence, or returns a confirmation. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The brevity, however, comes at the cost of behavioral detail, which is penalized elsewhere.

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 four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too terse to fully equip an agent. It does not explain what constitutes a guardian intervention, what happens on success or failure, or how this record might be used later. The agent is left to infer critical 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?

The input schema provides a description for every one of the four parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Record' and the resource 'guardian intervention', making it distinct from retrieval siblings like get_guardian_interventions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other record_* tools (e.g., record_decision), and the domain concept is left somewhat unexplained.

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' provides some timing context, and the sibling list implies a record-vs-read relationship with get_guardian_interventions. Yet there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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