yaaif_agent_spec_evidence_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action of recording and the source types; it does not disclose idempotency, overwrite/append behavior, validation of spec version, permissions, or side effects. The presence of an idempotency_key in the schema hints at possible idempotency, but the description does not mention it.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no extraneous words and is easy to parse.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of required fields like expected_version or requirement_key, nor what the operation returns or how it handles existing evidence. An agent would need to guess several parameter semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate for 11 parameters. It adds context for the 'kind' parameter by listing the three enum values, but it does not explain 'result', 'spec_id', 'expected_version', 'requirement_key', 'payload', 'source_id', 'expires_at', 'provenance_uri', 'idempotency_key', or 'summary'. This leaves the agent to infer their meaning from names and types.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('requirement-level verification evidence') and enumerates three evidence sources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'release_provenance_record' or other evidence-related tools, though the context is reasonably specific.

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 states when to use the tool: to record evidence from a passed agent test, ambient smoke run, or audited manual attestation. It provides clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives; it does not mention when not to use it or point to a sibling tool.

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