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

The description says 'Record an enhancement pair' implying a write operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which indicates read-only. This is a direct contradiction, warranting a score of 1. The description fails to disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the contradictory 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then timing, then return info. It is concise with no wasted words. However, the contradiction slightly mars its effectiveness.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are documented. However, the description omits explanation of the 'generator' parameter and contradicts annotations, leaving a gap in behavioral expectations. The tool has 3 required params but the description does not fully contextualize them.

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 fully explain the parameters. It mentions 'original_prompt' and 'enhanced_prompt' implicitly but does not define them or the required 'generator' parameter. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the lack of 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 clearly states the tool's verb 'Record an enhancement pair' and the resource 'in the Dali graph brain'. It specifies the purpose (learning from improvements to enrich creative_patterns and community_benchmark) and distinguishes from sibling tools like score_prompt and enhance_prompt by indicating it should be called after them.

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 description explicitly says 'Call this AFTER you write an enhanced prompt from score_prompt's brief or enhance_prompt.' This provides clear timing context. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the when-to-use guidance is strong.

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