sumo_qa_record_mutation

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

Annotations already declare write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavior: it validates input, enforces path containment for relative write_to, and clarifies that results are reported rather than gated. Overwrite semantics are not mentioned, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and uses compact notation for parameter fields. It is dense but waste-free, with minor readability cost from semicolons and backticks.

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 output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavior: validation, artifact location, path safety, parameter fields, and non-gating reporting. Minor gaps remain around root semantics and overwrite behavior, but the definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the burden. It thoroughly describes the mutation object fields (survivors, killed with >=0 and omission semantics, freshness enum values, detail, source_tool, generated_at) and explains write_to path containment and default. The root parameter is only implicitly described via containment, leaving a small gap.

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+resource: validate and save a host-collected mutation summary to a defined artifact path. The resource (mutation summary) is distinct from sibling tools like record_coverage, though the description does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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?

Clear context is given: use for a host-collected mutation summary to feed the QA report, and note that results are 'reported, never gated'. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives are provided, but the intended usage is sufficiently clear.

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