record_agent_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cryptographic integrity hash' but does not explain side effects such as immutability, storage, or failure modes. It also does not state whether the record is append-only or how the hash is used, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely affects audit trails.

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 a single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose and the key differentiator (integrity hash). It is concise and to the point.

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 simple tool with three fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any mention of the sibling verify_log_integrity or when to use this tool for recording versus verifying, which would improve completeness. The absence of behavioral details beyond the hash also leaves some ambiguity.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on the payload format. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'records' and the resource 'autonomous agent decision or tool execution', and adds the distinctive feature of a cryptographic integrity hash, which differentiates it from the sibling verify_log_integrity. An agent can immediately understand the core function.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling verify_log_integrity. The description does not mention the alternative or any conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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