Record open item

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which establishes this as a non-destructive non-idempotent write. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: items persist with status 'open', a new next_action does not retire the old one, and body length is constrained because it renders in the resume header. It could mention the exact overwrite/supersession mechanics more explicitly, but the description meaningfully extends the annotation signal.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, behavioral constraints follow, and the supersede guidance is placed last. Every clause earns its place — the body-rendering note, the one-at-a-time display rule, the non-retirement warning, and the resolve_claim relationship all convey distinct, non-redundant information. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 that annotations already declare the write-operation profile and the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description covers the essential agent needs: what to record, how items behave over time, and what alternatives exist. It is slightly pessimistic to require more given no output schema exists and the tool is simple (4 flat params, no nesting). A small gap is that it doesn't state what the return value is or confirm success, but for a simple append-style tool this is minor.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly, including the enum values and their meanings in the type property. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the body's rendering impact ('rendered in the resume header') and the next_action display behavior, but most parameter semantics are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the weight.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Append an open question, risk, milestone or next action.' It enumerates the exact item types, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like record_decision, record_constraint, and record_rejection. The status 'open' semantics and relationship to resolve_claim are made explicit, so an agent can tell this tool apart from its siblings without opening the schema.

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 description gives explicit usage context: these items keep surfacing in resume context until closed with resolve_claim, and it warns about the one-milestone/one-next-action display behavior. It also names the alternative approach ('supersede it via capture when direction changes') for retiring an old next_action, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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