sumo_qa_record_coverage

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it validates before saving, writes to a default QA coverage path, confines relative `write_to` values inside `root`, and states that coverage is 'Reported, never gated.' It does not clarify overwrite behavior when the target file already exists.

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 core action and destination appear first, followed by path-safety details, coverage field semantics, and gating behavior. Every clause carries information useful for calling the tool, with no filler.

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 a nested coverage object and no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: validation, destination path, relative path confinement, coverage field meanings, and that the result is reported but not gated. The missing pieces are the meaning of `root` and whether existing coverage files are overwritten, which are minor but real gaps.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it does so well for the nested `coverage` object by naming `line_percent`, `freshness`, `detail`, `source_tool`, and `generated_at` with useful value notes. It also explains relative `write_to` path behavior. The required `root` parameter is not described, which keeps this from being fully complete.

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 starts with a specific verb pair (validate and save) and a precise resource (a host-collected coverage summary) written to `.sumo-qa/coverage.json` for the QA report. The 'host-collected' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling `sumo_qa_measuring_coverage`, which implies measurement rather than recording.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is for validating and recording an already-collected coverage summary for the QA report, and relative `write_to` paths are confined under `root`. It does not explicitly say when to use `sumo_qa_measuring_coverage` instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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