Record materials + consent (§0 gate)

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

Annotations only mark readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds the real gate behavior: sources are recorded as a manifest and the materials themselves stay in the conversation. It does not cover all edge cases such as consent=false behavior, but the core side effect is disclosed.

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 compact and front-loads the most operationally important guidance ('Call only after'). The example and lock warning are justified, though the §A/§0 emphasis is slightly noisy.

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 a gate tool with three parameters and no output schema, it covers the essential calling context, the source payload shape, and the lock behavior. The main gap is timeline_id semantics and return behavior, but these are secondary to the gate conditions.

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 carry parameter semantics. It adds a concrete example for sources and explains the role of consent=true, but it leaves timeline_id entirely unexplained and does not address what consent=false would mean.

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 title and description clearly identify the tool as recording materials plus consent to pass a hard gate. It states the exact prerequisites and consequence ('Until consent=true, node authoring is locked'), which distinguishes it from the authoring/publishing siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call only after' two concrete conditions and ties the call to unlocking node authoring. This tells an agent exactly when to invoke it and what state must already exist.

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