Record an assessment of related work

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: append-not-replace semantics (consistent with idempotentHint=false), no status mutations, an authorization constraint ('Only the intent's owner may assess it'), and the returned identifier (asm_). The non-destructive-to-conflict-state clarification is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 with purpose and organized so each sentence adds a distinct rule (ordering, append behavior, follow-up tools, ownership). Slightly long at six sentences, and 'Only the intent's owner may assess it' partly duplicates the agent_id schema text, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Covers the full call lifecycle an agent needs: when to call, ordering relative to publish_intent and file changes, what the call does and does not mutate, authorization, and what is returned even though no output schema exists. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying that the stored verdict is the agent's judgment about system-reported overlap rather than a restatement of it, and that the rationale must be checkable later. It does not add syntax or format detail beyond that.

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 and resource ('Record what you concluded about one entry from related_work') and immediately frames the division of labor: the system reports overlaps, the agent decides their meaning. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_conflicts, resolve_conflict and coordinate_with_agent, which are named as separate actions rather than folded into this tool.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition and ordering ('Call this once per related intent, after publish_intent and before you change files') plus explicit routing to alternatives ('Act on the verdict with coordinate_with_agent, resolve_conflict or discard_work as needed'). The when-not is also clear: it does not open, resolve or dismiss conflicts.

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