state_impact

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation ('Record'), but with no annotations and no output schema, that's all it reveals. It doesn't specify whether this creates a new record, updates an existing state, requires any authentication, or what happens on repeated calls. For a mutation tool, this is a substantial gap.

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 sentence, about eight words, with no filler. It leads with the action and object, making it easy to parse and free of redundant information.

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 five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too minimal to support correct invocation. It doesn't explain what a valid 'preconditions' string looks like, what 'hunter_why' is for, or what the tool returns. The agent would need to inspect external docs or guess.

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, but it only mentions two of the five required parameters (impact, preconditions) and doesn't explain formats, constraints, or how they relate. engagement_id, card_id, and hunter_why are absent from the description, and the schema only labels them as strings. This leaves the agent to guess at their meaning.

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 concrete verb ('Record') with a specific resource ('a card') and identifies the payload ('hunter impact_class and preconditions'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, none of which address recording impact state. However, it introduces the term 'impact_class' that doesn't appear in the schema ('impact'), and omits the other required fields from the description.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It doesn't state prerequisites, whether it should be called before/after other tools like execute_proof or draft_waves, or any alternative to use instead. The only inference is from the verb 'record', but that's not enough.

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