governance_prepare_failure_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful trait: 'storage remains host-owned', signaling the tool does not persist data itself. However, it neither explains what 'prepare' entails, side effects, permissions, nor the nature of the tombstone, leaving most behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise sentence with two clauses, containing no redundant wording. It is efficiently structured, although its brevity sacrifices clarity.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description lacks usage context, parameter guidance, and sufficient behavioral detail for a tool with three parameters and a governance-specific purpose. The cryptic 'tombstone' and optional parameters create significant gaps in understanding.

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%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (task, failure, profile). It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, offering the agent no insight into what values to provide or how the parameters relate to the tombstone preparation.

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 clearly uses 'prepare' with a specific resource, 'mandatory minimum tombstone', indicating a failure record marker. The tool name reinforces the purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling prepare tools, but the resource is distinct enough to separate it from similar tools like governance_prepare_codex_dispatch.

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 governance_resolve_failure_policy or governance_prepare_scope_governor_receipt. The phrase 'mandatory minimum' hints at a required step, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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