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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this tool creates, updates, reads, or mutates data, what side effects occur, or what the tool returns. Calling it a 'recorder tool' implies a write operation, but the concrete behavior is entirely undisclosed.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains only a restatement of the tool name and adds no information that an agent could not derive from the name itself. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one does not.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and meaningful parameter schema, the description is the only source of context. It is completely inadequate: it fails to explain what 'source' means, what the tool does, what side effects occur, or how this relates to the sibling recorder tools. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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?

The tool has zero named parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The schema is effectively empty with additionalProperties true, so nothing more is expected at the parameter level. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'Fractal Research MCP recorder tool: fractal_record_source'. It identifies the tool as a recorder but does not specify a verb, the resource being recorded, or the action performed. It fails to distinguish this from sibling recorder tools like fractal_record_agent, fractal_record_claim, and fractal_record_tool.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling recording tools. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must rely entirely on the tool name to infer any usage intent.

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