record_domain_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains pydantic validation, the requirement for replace=True to avoid accidental overwrite, and the IncompleteResultError listing missing rule ids. It covers the key behavioral traits, though it does not detail return values or error types beyond that.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes substantive information: payload validation, completeness requirements, and overwrite protection. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a complex nested result parameter, and the description explains the critical validation rules and error behavior. An output schema is indicated, so return value details are not needed. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, though it could mention success feedback.

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 for top-level parameters is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning. It directly explains the 'replace' parameter ('Re-recording an already-recorded domain requires replace=True') and elaborates on the requirements for the 'result' payload. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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+resource: 'Record the audit result for one domain.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_issues or render_report, which have different purposes. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: the domain must be selected for the run, and completed results must have verdicts for every rule. It implies usage for recording results but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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