register_kernel_validation

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds useful context beyond them: the evidence is 'immutable' and must be attached to its 'exact producing run', implying a consistency constraint. However, it does not disclose conflict behavior — what happens on a revision mismatch or when evidence already exists for that run — given idempotentHint=false.

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 eight-word sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb 'attach' and the central immutability constraint. It is efficient, though arguably too abbreviated to carry the semantic weight of a 6-parameter registration operation with a revision-consistency check.

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?

The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description is incomplete for correct invocation: it omits when to call this relative to extract_kernel_validation, how the expected_run_revision consistency check behaves on mismatch, and how sensitivity and source_root influence the operation. An agent would need to infer the entire workflow context from the tool name alone.

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 only 50%, leaving pipeline_id, sensitivity, and source_root without schema descriptions, and the tool description does nothing to illuminate them — especially the meaning of the sensitivity enum (normal/internal/sensitive), which an agent must set correctly. The phrase 'exact producing run' does map onto run_id and expected_run_revision, but that is the only parameter clarification the description provides.

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 ('attach') and a specific resource ('validated immutable correctness evidence') with a target ('its exact producing run'), which distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like extract_kernel_validation (producing/extracting evidence) and compare_kernel_validation (comparing). The jargon-heavy phrasing ('correctness evidence') and terseness leave some ambiguity about what precisely is being registered, so it falls short of a 5.

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. It never references the sibling extract_kernel_validation that presumably produces the evidence being attached, nor does it mention preconditions such as calling get_run to obtain expected_run_revision, nor any ordering relative to validate_workspace or record_kernel_validation_comparison.

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