record_security_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that this is a write/state-recording operation, the sha format constraint (4-64 hex), the HEAD default, and the success/failure response shape. However, it does not say whether an existing audit record is overwritten (the 'last_audited_sha' field implies it is), nor any permission/auth requirements, leaving key mutation semantics to inference.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a clean Parameters/Returns layout with no filler. The Returns block duplicates the existing output schema, which is slight waste, but sizing is reasonable.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the definition covers the purpose, both parameters, and success/failure behavior. The residual gap is the lack of any annotation coverage plus no statement about overwrite behavior or required permissions.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: repo_root is defined as an absolute path to an existing git directory, and sha as an optional 4-64 hex commit id defaulting to HEAD. That covers both parameters with constraints the bare schema lacks.

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 ('Record'), resource ('repository security-audited'), and scope ('at a given commit'). No sibling in the list does anything similar, so an agent can select it unambiguously from the name plus description.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (call it to record an audit), and the sha default to HEAD hints at the common case, but there is no explicit 'use this when / instead of X' guidance or stated prerequisite. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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