checkpoint

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses atomicity (single transaction, leaving no half-captured design) and duplicate handling (reported, not skipped or forced), both important call-time behaviors.

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 first sentence front-loads the action and scope; the subsequent sentences add meaningful behavioral and rationale content. Slightly wordy, but every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description adequately explains the overall contract and failure behavior. However, it never mentions the required conferral sub-object, leaving an agent to discover it solely through the schema; the schema is rich enough to compensate.

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 high (83%), including rich descriptions for items and conferral, so the description does not need to restate parameters. The only gap is that it doesn't clarify the undocumented actor field, but baseline 3 applies when the schema does most of the work.

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 names a specific action (record) and exact scope (everything agreed in one design session) and frames it as a single transaction. It distinguishes itself from per-item sibling tools by explaining that design artifacts only make sense together.

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 clearly states the when: at the end of a design session, all agreements should be recorded atomically. It implies the alternative of recording one item at a time is wrong, but it does not explicitly name or exclude sibling tools like feature_propose or confer_record.

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