Provenance Stamp

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

The description adds useful context by listing what the sidecar records (sha256 checksum, file size, mtime, source COMP path, toolchain versions, git metadata, author, tags, notes) and re-emphasizes the offline operation. Annotations already declare write-ish intent (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature, so no contradiction. Missing is explicit mention of the `overwrite` default behavior, but it's not critical given the annotations.

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 exactly two sentences: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second lists the recorded data fields. Every clause is informative and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Even though there are 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is written, to what artifact types, what data it records, and that it works offline. Missing are explicit details on overwrite behavior or return value, but these are either implied by the sidecar concept or present in the schema (e.g., `overwrite` parameter).

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 100% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying the parameters to the overall purpose (e.g., 'source COMP path', 'originating tdmcp tool', 'best-effort git metadata') which maps to `source`, `include_git`, and `tags`. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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 ('Writes') and a specific resource ('.provenance.json sidecar') and clearly lists the artifact kinds it applies to (tox, recipe note, recipe bundle, component bundle). This distinguishes it from generic save/export tools in the sibling list, such as save_recipe_to_vault or export_recipe_bundle.

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 'next to a saved artifact' gives clear context on when to use the tool, and the 'Offline — no TD bridge required' note indicates an advantage over bridge-dependent tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, though the context is generally sufficient.

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