create_source_audit

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and constraints on its own. It conveys that the audit is tied to an exact revision hash, but it omits whether the server verifies the fingerprint, what happens on mismatch, auth requirements, or any other side effects. This is a minimal write-operation description that leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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; 'Create an audit' immediately identifies the action and the following clause adds the key constraint. It is appropriately short for the information it carries.

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 six parameters, five required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It leaves unclear how the server uses the SHA-256 versus article_content, whether an existing revision is required, and what the response indicates on success or failure. Essential context beyond the sentence is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It hints at the role of revision_sha256 and the revision context, but it does not explain slug, title, article_content, or editorial_project_slug, nor the relationships among them. Parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive, but the description adds only marginal semantic value.

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 opening verb 'Create' plus resource 'audit' clearly states the operation, and the qualifier 'bound to the exact SHA-256 fingerprint of an editorial revision' gives a specific scope that distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like get_source_audit and list_source_audits. The intended object and uniqueness condition are identifiable without opening the schema.

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 no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the editorial revision or source must already be registered, nor does it name any sibling to avoid, such as register_source or run_mechanical_checks.

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