record_finding

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, so the description's 'record or revise' adds little beyond that. It does not disclose revision semantics (e.g., whether finding_id triggers an update, if evidence is replaced, or effects on lifecycle), despite the schema showing fields like lifecycle and finding_id.

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 extremely concise (7 words) and front-loaded with the verb, which is good. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, similar to a label. It reads more like a title than a description with meaningful structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—with nested evidence objects, lifecycle states, assessments, and a large schema—one sentence is wholly inadequate. The description does not address revision behavior, optional vs. required fields, or how to interact with existing findings, and the output schema does not relieve the need for basic usage 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but does not. It gives no hints about the 'request' parameter, required fields, or how evidence linkage works. The schema itself is self-documenting with defaults and enums, but the description contributes zero semantic value.

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 specific resource ('evidence-linked finding'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_analysis or record_comparison. However, it lacks details on what constitutes a finding or the exact scope of 'evidence-linked', so it is not maximally specific.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as record_hypothesis, record_analysis, or get_finding. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or relationships to sibling operations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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