vorion_record_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'record' by explaining the consequence: positive signals increase trust over time, while negative signals decrease trust, with higher-tier agents penalized more severely per the formula P(T) = 3 + T. This is useful behavioral context, though it omits details like authentication, rate limits, or return values.

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 three sentences long, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds meaningful context (positive/negative impact, penalty formula) without any fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and behavioral consequences, but it is incomplete in operational details. Since there is no output schema, the description should have specified what the caller receives (e.g., confirmation, updated trust score, or error behavior). It also omits prerequisites (e.g., whether the agent must exist) and idempotency characteristics. This is a moderate gap for a recording tool.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by mapping the type enum values (behavioral.success, compliance.pass) to positive signals and (behavioral.failure, compliance.fail) to negative signals, and by explaining the penalty formula that relates to the type/value choice. This enriches the schema's bare descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record a behavioral signal (positive or negative) for an AI agent.' It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vorion_check_trust (which presumably reads trust) and vorion_log_proof (which logs proofs) by focusing on recording behavioral signals and their trust impact.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool by explaining that positive signals (success, compliance pass) increase trust and negative signals (failure, compliance fail) decrease trust. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the full 'when-to-use vs 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.