confer_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that this is a recording act and explains sequencing ('a worker cannot both review its own work and close it in one call, so the review has to exist first'). However, it does not disclose what happens on success, failure modes when the subject does not exist, or how the recorded conferral can be retrieved later.

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 compact and front-loaded. The opening sentence states the core action, the second gives two concrete use cases, and the third gives the critical precondition. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

For a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contextual grounding: what the tool records, when to use it, why the record must precede feature completion, and the existence precondition on the subject. It does not explain the return value, but absence of an output schema lowers that burden. The rich parameter schema covers the remaining invocation detail.

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 75%, and the schema already contains detailed descriptions for most parameters, especially inside the nested 'conferral' object. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'The subject must already exist,' which is a useful precondition for subject_id but not a semantic elaboration. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Record an exchange with a peer model as its own act.' It clearly identifies the tool as a write/record action and gives concrete use cases (diff review before a feature is done, standalone conferrals). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like confer_history or confer_digest, so some sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for a diff review before a feature is marked done' and 'for any conferral worth keeping that is not attached to another write.' It also states a necessary precondition: 'The subject must already exist.' It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases beyond the 'not attached to another write' clause.

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