audit_mutation_allowed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is not an authorization grant and does not replace host permissions, but it does not confirm whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what authority is required to call it.

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 very short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Both sentences serve a purpose, though the extreme brevity contributes to the parameter and usage gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a complex audit/permissions domain, the description is too thin: it omits parameter semantics and has only a bare disclaimer about usage.

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?

There are three parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about audit_id, ref, or entity_id. The meaning and format of each parameter must be inferred entirely from the schema titles, which is insufficient.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and a domain resource ('the audit's frozen mutation boundary'), but 'frozen mutation boundary' is jargon that does not clearly explain what is returned or how it differs from audit_status/audit_context. It is more concrete than a tautology, but still leaves the core purpose partially inferential.

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 second sentence clarifies that this does not replace normal Plan/WorkTurn or host permissions, which gives a usage caveat. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use condition or comparison to any of the many sibling tools, leaving alternatives and invocation context unstated.

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