Record Triage Decision

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: an append-only consent row is written per proposal, the result is a per-id ok/error report, mixed batches partially succeed, and decline is posting-scoped rather than company-scoped. It tells the agent exactly what gets destroyed and the partial-success semantics that 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?

The content is dense but front-loaded, leading with the core action before the scoping and consent caveats. It reads as a long run-on paragraph, and a tighter split would aid scanning, but every clause carries real information.

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 a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (per-id ok/error report), the side effect (append-only consent rows), and the boundary against record_consent — exactly the details an agent needs. Only the optional note/reason/channel parameters are left unexplained.

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%, so the description carries the load. It ably documents the action enum (accept vs decline) and implies proposal_ids via 'one or many proposals,' but note, reason, and channel receive no explanation at all, leaving three of five parameters undocumented in either place.

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?

It states a specific verb (record) and resource (the user's triage decision over one or many proposals) and spells out the two actions' effects: accept queues for the next apply run, decline drops those unique postings. It explicitly distances itself from the sibling record_consent, so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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 frames when to call it — the user's own decision, stated directly or as a selection rule — and clarifies that accept is NOT submit consent, pointing to record_consent for the separate approval step. It stops short of contrasting with record_decision/request_decision, so context is clear but alternatives aren't fully enumerated.

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