classification_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the routing side-effect, the equivalence to run_table, and the invisibility consequence for files without a workstream. It doesn't mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, or whether records are appended or replaced, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, when to use it, and a critical consequence. The most important routing fact is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter write tool with a rich schema and output schema present, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage trigger, alternative, and a key failure mode. It could mention whether records are upserted or appended, but the description is largely complete for an agent to decide and invoke 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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'records' parameter and its fields. The description adds context about what the records mean (routing) but doesn't add syntax, format, or per-field semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('Table 05 classification for files'), and immediately explains the routing consequence. It distinguishes itself from run_table by noting that running Table 05 writes the same records, so an agent can tell this tool is the direct/manual write path.

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 says 'Use this when you have classified files yourself' and contrasts with run_table, which writes the same records. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative. The warning about files with no workstream being invisible adds a practical condition for use.

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