All 4 tools have severely deficient definitions. Tool names lack action verbs (record_* is weak; should be write_* or save_*). Descriptions are cryptic and domain-specific jargon-heavy ('seat names NO path', 'era stamp', 'the driver's own'), unintelligible to an LLM without deep trademark-clearance context. Input schemas are minimal: only array parameters with generic 'rows'/'declinations'/'closures' descriptions, no item schema, no field-level types. No output schemas documented. No error handling guidance. No parameter constraints (enums, ranges, formats). Descriptions average ~150 chars but are opaque rather than actionable.

• Rename tools to verb_noun pattern: 'write_coverage_form', 'save_declination_record', 'persist_disposition_data', 'close_doubt_record'. This signals intent and aligns with LLM parsing conventions.
• Rewrite descriptions in plain English, not domain jargon. Template: '[Action] [what data] [where/when]. Call this [when/why]. Returns [what]. Example: Persist coverage form rows to the run directory after evaluating trademark conflicts. Each row contains: mark_name, search_result_id, conflict_level, notes. Returns {success, rows_written, errors}.'
• Add full input schemas with items.properties. For each tool, document the expected fields in the array: {type: object, properties: {field_name: {type: string, description: '...'}, ...}, required: [...]}, minItems: 1, maxItems: 1000.
• Document output schema explicitly in tool definition or description. Include: success (boolean), rows_written (integer), file_path (string, if applicable), errors (array of {row_index, message}). This enables LLMs to chain tools and extract results.
• Add error handling guidance: 'On validation error, returns {success: false, error: string, recoverable: true/false}. If recoverable, fix input and retry. If not, contact admin.' Include examples of common errors (missing required field, invalid enum value, file permission denied).