record_exception

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does add one important behavior: recording an exception does not alter legal status. However, it does not disclose persistence, side effects, idempotency, permissions, or response behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and adds the key scoping constraint about legal-status changes efficiently.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, this description is too sparse. An agent would struggle to know what values belong in the optional fields or what the tool returns, despite understanding the overall intent.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 8 bare string parameters. It adds some meaning by implying what 'type' values may look like (retrieval, parsing, migration, verification), but it does not explain 'message', 'source_url', 'observed_at', 'retry_after', 'expected_revision', 'jurisdiction_code', or 'measure_id'.

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 a specific verb ('Record') with a clear resource ('exception') and enumerates the exception categories: retrieval, parsing, migration, or verification. It also distinguishes this from a legal-status change, which separates it from sibling tools like resolve_exception.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for recording non-legal-status exceptions. It implies the tool should not be used for legal-status changes, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or provide a when-not-to-use list.

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