Record constraint

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

Annotations already signal this is a non-read, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond that: 'one file, one commit, append-only.' This tells the agent what the side effect looks like without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, persistence behavior is stated compactly, and the sibling distinction is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides the essential behavioral context and sibling guidance. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema and the tool's side-effect model is already clear enough for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains title, body, and project with meaningful guidance. The description does not repeat or add parameter-level semantics, so it earns the baseline score rather than higher.

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 ('Append a constraint that future work must respect') and clearly distinguishes constraints from decisions by defining them as boundaries rather than choices. It also references freeze_claim as the closely related sibling, so an agent can disambiguate without opening other schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit routing instruction: 'Use freeze_claim only if the user wants it to become unchangeable.' It also positions the tool relative to record_decision via the persistence note, making the when-to-use call unambiguous.

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