Record materials + consent (§0 gate)

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=falseable, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does so by disclosing that consent=true unlocks node authoring, that materials remain in the conversation, and that source notes sections link back to recorded entries. It stops short of fully explaining persistence or failure behavior, but the key state-changing effect is clear.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: the gate warning, the preconditions, the source format, the linking behavior, and the consent-lock effect. It is front-loaded with the most important operational constraint and uses inline examples to economize space.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, this description covers the critical context: when to call, what data is expected, how sources are used later, and what consent controls. The only minor gap is lack of guidance on where `timeline_id` comes fromaint, but the overall picture is actionable enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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. It adds meaningful semantics for `sources` with a concrete example, explains `id` and `url` expectations, and ties `consent` to the gate behavior. `timeline_id` is left to inference, but its purpose is reasonably obvious from the name and the sibling tools.

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 opens with 'THE HARD GATE (§A)' and states a precise behavior: record materials and consent, invoked only after specific conditions. It clearly distinguishes this tool as a prerequisite gate for node authoring, making its role unique among the listed 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?

Explicitly states the preconditions: 'Call only after (1) the user provided real materials in the conversation and (2) they explicitly agreed...' It also explains the consequence of not setting consent, which directly guides when and why to call this tool versus other authoring tools.

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