qualto_attest_claim

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only reveals the high-level write/read-back flow. It omits crucial details such as confirm_live_write defaulting to false, the effect of cancel_after_attestation, and any side effects or conditions around placing the order.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's core behavior.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with a nested claim object, two behavior-modifying boolean flags, no annotations, and zero schema parameter descriptions. The high-level summary is not enough for an agent to select or call it correctly; the missing parameter semantics and side-effect details are significant gaps.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters. The agent gets no meaningful insight into the required claim object shape, the live-write confirmation flag, or the cancellation behavior, so it cannot invoke the tool with confidence.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: validating and placing a claim-bound order, reading it back, and returning a verdict. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qualto_cleanup_claim or qualto_verify_receipts, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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