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

The description discloses behaviors beyond annotations: it specifies writing to study_sessions, the XP formula (+1/min capped 30/day), and daily streak updates. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, with no contradiction.

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 compact sentences: first covers the core functionality, second provides usage guidance. No redundant information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the tool's effects (writes to tables, awards XP, updates streak). For a recording tool with 7 parameters, it covers the main behaviors, though it omits error cases or return value details.

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 coverage is low (29%), but the description adds context for deck_id (optional, omit for ad-hoc sessions) and implies the role of cards_studied and time_spent_seconds. It does not detail total_count, correct_count, session_title, or session_type, leaving ambiguity.

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 uses the specific verb 'record' and identifies the resource as a 'completed study session'. It outlines three distinct actions (writes to study_sessions, awards XP, updates streak), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like play_game or generate_quiz.

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 states when to use the tool ('after a play_game / quiz / flashcard session ends') and notes a prerequisite ('requires sign-in'). It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context of sibling tools is available.

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