record_prior_alignment

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It discloses validation behavior (rejects unknown turn_ids to prevent schema fork) and the logging categories (aligned, contradicted, ignored). Missing details on side effects, permissions, or error handling beyond rejection, but key safety trait is covered.

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?

Four concise sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose and context, each sentence adds value: purpose, research context, workflow, and validation constraint. Extremely efficient.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers when, what, and validation. Missing details about return value or success signaling, but overall sufficient for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds context about the workflow and validation but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what schema already provides; baseline score of 3 for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool records how a response used a prior_for_turn() call, specifying the exact resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like prior_for_turn (which generates the call) and prior_alignment_summary (which presumably summarizes logs), making its unique role in the alignment-vs-pushback instrumentation explicit.

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?

Description provides clear context: use after prior_for_turn and response generation, with validation against priors_log. It implies the usage sequence but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools, though sibling names suggest clear boundaries.

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