human_attestation_create

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that the `by_human` flag is sourced from the caller's identity (server env or OAuth binding), never from the app_id. It also emphasizes the record is durable and cannot be forged by providing a custom attested_by. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the generic readOnly/destructive hints.

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 moderately concise but contains some redundancy; the concept of the attester being the calling identity is stated twice in different forms. The structure is a single paragraph plus a clarifying note, which is acceptable but could be tightened to reduce repetition.

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 explains the core function and a key security behavior, but lacks details about expected return values, error conditions, or side effects beyond creating a durable record. It does not mention whether the record is immediately visible to other tools or if there are any constraints on status values. Without an output schema, the description should provide more completion.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies the role of app_id (it's not used for attribution). It does not explain the meaning or constraints of key parameters like status, statement, evidence_ref, or subject_type. Required vs optional fields are not elaborated, leaving the agent uncertain about valid inputs.

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 tool's primary action: 'Create a durable attestation/rejection/change-request record'. It specifies the subject types and statuses, and clarifies that the attester is the calling identity, which distinguishes it from related list/query tools like human_attestation_list.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the attester is the calling identity but does not state conditions for use (e.g., 'use this when you need to log a human attestation') or contrast with sibling tools like human_required_enqueue or human_attestation_list. No 'when not to use' is given.

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