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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description usefully adds the score scale semantics and the constraint that drivers come from a catalog. It omits what happens on repeated entries for the same date and whether the new entry is returned.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and packs scale, kind, drivers and note without filler. The nested colons and range punctuation make it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 six-parameter write tool with no output schema and thin schema documentation, the description covers most inputs but omits date and observedAtTime semantics and says nothing about the result of the call. Adequate, with clear gaps.

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 only 17%, so the description has to carry meaning. It explains the score range endpoints and the kind values and driver sourcing, but leaves the required 'date' format unstated and does not mention 'observedAtTime', which is the only parameter with schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('mood') and pins down scope with the score scale and the daily/momentary distinction. It does not name the sibling list/delete tools explicitly, but the create semantics are unambiguous against vora_list_mood and vora_delete_mood.

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 some context via 'daily or momentary' and points at Vora's mood driver catalog, which implies drivers should come from vora_list_mood_drivers. However, it never states when to log a daily versus momentary entry, nor any prerequisites such as resolving drivers before calling.

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