record_finding

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful notion of 'revise' (update existing findings) and evidence linkage, but it does not disclose details like whether an existing finding is overwritten, whether finding_id is required for revision, or any lifecycle effects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and readable, though it is so terse that it leaves out useful context.

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 complex create/update operation with a nested request object, many enum-based fields, and zero schema descriptions, a one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to construct a valid request or decide between this and closely-related siblings. The presence of an output schema and rich enums helps, but does not compensate for the missing usage and behavioral context.

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?

The description does not explain the request structure or any of the request fields. 'Evidence-linked' hints at the evidence array and 'record or revise' hints at finding_id, but with 0% schema description coverage and over a dozen nested fields, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clear action ('record or revise') on a clear resource ('an evidence-linked finding'), and the 'evidence-linked' qualifier signals the tool's core purpose. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like record_hypothesis or record_analysis, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as record_hypothesis, get_finding, or summarize_evidence. The description does not explain when to record versus when to revise, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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