record_claim_mapping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a key trait—'Does not decide truth'—which prevents misuse. However, it does not mention side effects, whether existing mappings are updated or appended, required source existence, permissions, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical boundary ('Does not decide truth') is placed prominently at the end as a standalone clarifier. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a high-level purpose but not enough operational context for correct invocation: it does not define how status should be chosen, whether sources must already be registered, what happens on conflict, or what the tool returns. This is a meaningful gap for a write-style tool.

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 needs to compensate. It names several parameters in prose: article_excerpt, source_excerpt, quote_text, and procedural_posture. However, it leaves required parameters like status, slug, and claim_text unexplained, and does not clarify the meaning of the status enum values or how source_ids relate to the mapping.

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 ('claim-to-source mapping') and explicitly enumerates the key fields it captures: article excerpt, source excerpt, quotation, and procedural posture. The final phrase 'Does not decide truth' sharply differentiates it from analytical or decision-making sibling tools.

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 establishes a clear usage context: this records human-reviewable mappings rather than deciding truth. It implies the tool is for documentation and human review, not for automated verdicts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like run_mechanical_checks or generate_source_report, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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