create audit tombstone

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the upsert side effect ('Upserting an existing seq replaces the reason'), the exact API-key scope (platform:write), the 403 role restriction, the 201 return shape, and specific 400 failure modes. This is far richer than the annotation set alone and gives the agent a precise behavioral model.

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?

Every sentence contributes: purpose, endpoint/scope, return shape, auth requirement, and error conditions. The purpose is front-loaded and the technical details are packed into efficient clauses without repetition or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides the 201 response fields and error cases. It covers authentication, side effects, and preconditions. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing, and the reference to GET /v1/audit/verify in the schema complements the description.

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% with detailed descriptions for both seq and reason, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description reinforces the same constraints (seq must be a gap, reason >= 10 chars) but does not add material new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Acknowledge a verified audit-chain gap with a written reason' and explains the effect ('stops reporting it as unexplained'). It also characterizes itself as 'a platform-admin repair action', clearly separating it from read-only siblings like list_audit_tombstones and get_audit_verification.

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 gives clear context: it is for verified gaps, requires platform-level admin, and 'never a way to hide a gap'. It enumerates 400 refusal conditions, so the agent knows when it will be rejected. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool to use instead, but the conditions are strong enough to infer appropriate use.

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