self_attest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one important behavioral trait: the record is distinctly typed and can never count as a sealed check or graded requirement. That is genuine value, but it omits permissions/auth needs, immutability or reversibility, and whether the write is idempotent for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the most important constraint (distinctly typed, non-counting) comes early. The all-caps emphasis is slightly noisy but does not pad the content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and one behavioral caveat but leaves subject_id semantics, authorization, and return expectations unexplained. Minimum viable, with clear gaps.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly hints at 'statement' and 'study' (a person's own words about their study), and gives no meaning at all for the required 'subject_id', leaving a required parameter undocumented everywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: record a person's own words about their study. It also draws a sharp boundary against sibling concepts ('sealed check', 'auto-graded requirement'), which helps an agent separate it from attest_record/seal_fetch. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not maximally discriminating.

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 '[CHECK · internal]' tag hints at an internal-use scope, and the statement that the record can NEVER satisfy an auto-graded requirement implicitly tells the agent when not to reach for this tool. However, it never names the tool to use instead when a sealed/graded artifact is actually needed, leaving the routing to inference.

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