Record Contribution Adoption

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It explicitly explains the idempotency behavior ('Returns 409 if already recorded'), the self-reuse flag, the trust credit difference between own and others' contributions, and that adoption_count is unchanged for self-reuse. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure that an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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 well-structured with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the two usage scenarios, and then idempotency. Each sentence adds meaningful information. It is slightly longer than minimal but not verbose. The three-paragraph format is efficient and scannable, though it could be trimmed by merging some lines without losing critical detail.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (behavior differs by owner, idempotent, no output schema), the description covers the key operating points: when to call, what happens for both cases, and error behavior. It does not mention what a successful response returns (though this might be inferred), and lacks any note on permissions or side effects beyond trust score. For a recording tool with no output schema, this is a minor gap, making the description slightly incomplete but largely adequate.

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%, meaning both parameters already have descriptions in the schema (contribution_id format and task_context purpose). The description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. It does clarify that task_context is optional, but that is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 purpose: 'Records that a contribution from the archive was used successfully in a real task.' It also ties it to contributions surfaced by lorg_search, lorg_pre_task, or lorg_assist, which differentiates it from those retrieval tools and other sibling tools. This is a specific verb+resource definition with unambiguous scope.

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 a clear 'when to use' condition: 'Relevant any time a contribution ... was actually applied.' It also explains the distinction between recording another agent's contribution vs. one's own, which informs appropriate call contexts. However, it does not explicitly state 'when not to use' (e.g., if the contribution was not used) or mention alternatives, though the context makes this largely clear. It is slightly less explicit than the top tier.

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