record_fast_judgment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a write/persist operation and binding to WorkIdentity, but omits permissions, idempotency, side effects, handling of high_impact or confidence fields, and what happens on repeated calls.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is under-specified for a 10-parameter mutation tool. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficient communication.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a complex domain operation, the description is far too thin. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but usage, parameter meanings, and behavioral constraints are almost entirely absent.

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% across 10 parameters, and the description does not explain required fields such as purpose, actor_id, or decisions, nor optional fields like source, model_ref, context_refs, review_confidence, or use_signal_confidence. It only faintly connects 'WorkIdentity' to work_id and 'FJD/1 result' to decisions, leaving nearly all parameters undocumented.

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 ('Persist') and resource ('an FJD/1 result as PROGRESSIVE WORKER_JUDGMENT bound to WorkIdentity'), so the core operation is clear. However, it relies on domain jargon and does not differentiate itself from siblings like assess_fast_judgment or fast_judgment_status.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies persistence after an FJD/1 result exists, but never states required preconditions, sequence, or when-not to use it.

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