sumo_qa_record_coverage

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: validation runs BEFORE any write, coverage is REPORTED and never gated, and the tool infers nothing. It does not address repeat-write behavior or what happens to an existing artifact, which is the one remaining gap for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the plumbing disclaimer, and each sentence carries distinct information (routing phrases, dict schema, validation ordering, path rules). It is dense and slightly long, with the all-caps disclaimer verging on redundant emphasis, but nothing is padding.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form object, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description covers validation semantics, gating behavior, provenance fields, and path safety. Only overwrite/idempotency behavior of an existing artifact is left unaddressed.

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 full burden and does so: it enumerates the coverage dict keys with value domains (line_percent 0-100, freshness fresh/stale/unknown/absent, detail, source_tool, generated_at), explains the omit-for-not-measured case, and documents write_to's default and relative-path confinement to root.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Validate a host-collected coverage summary and persist it as the .sumo-qa/coverage.json artifact'. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling sumo_qa_measuring_coverage by declaring 'the host skill runs the coverage tool ... this tool runs nothing and infers nothing', so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Provides concrete natural-language trigger phrasings ('record the coverage result', 'save coverage into the QA report') that make selection straightforward, and rules out the measurement sibling. It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions or naming alternatives by tool name for the write path.

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