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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description adds the important behavioral constraint that the answer must come from the human, not be invented, but it does not explain overwrite/retry behavior or what exactly gets stored beyond the schema.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core action, and spends its remaining words on the most important misuse guardrails. There is no filler.

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 simple four-parameter recording tool with mutation annotations and 75% schema coverage, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It could say more about the key parameter or overwrite semantics, but nothing critical is missing for normal use.

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 75%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description only broadly clarifies that the recorded value is the human's answer and does not add field-level detail, especially for the undocumented key parameter.

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 and resource: record the answer the human gave you in chat. It also explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling tools assume and edit, so an agent can identify the correct tool without opening 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 explicit when-to-use guidance (when the human gave an answer in chat) and explicit when-not-to-use cases with named alternatives: use assume when not given an answer, and use edit's needs when trying to unblock work.

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