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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is known. The description adds that the message is scoped to this session and keeps the builder timeline faithful, but says nothing about persistence, ordering, idempotency, or auth needs. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted filler. The second sentence adds rationale rather than redundancy, though it is slightly more prose than strictly needed.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter docs, the description covers role semantics but leaves flowId and agent undocumented. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 all four parameters. It only gestures at 'role' (values already exposed by the schema enum) and says nothing about flowId, text format, or the optional agent parameter, leaving the majority of parameters unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb (record/log) and resource (a message in the builder chat), and clarifies the two roles it can carry. It does not compare itself to any sibling, but no obvious overlapping flow_* tool exists, so the purpose is still unambiguous.

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 clause about the user's request (role 'user') versus your own progress/summary (role 'assistant') hints at when each role applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus other builder-facing tools, and no when-not guidance.

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