record_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation ('appends'), is auditable, and includes specific fields. However, it lacks details on idempotency, error handling, concurrency, or persistence guarantees.

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 sentence that front-loads 'WRITE' and conveys all key information without any extra words. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description provides a high-level purpose but lacks details on return value, error conditions, or typical usage patterns. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, meaning parameters are not described in the schema beyond names. The description mentions fields like sources, approvals, output, and advanced, adding some context. But it does not explain formats, constraints, or the relationship between required and optional parameters.

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 starts with 'WRITE' indicating the action type. It clearly states the tool appends an auditable agent action or outcome to a local ATS JSONL ledger, listing included fields (sources, approvals, output, advanced). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_actions (read) or poll_task_events (poll).

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 implies usage for recording actions but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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