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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond that by stating the tool increments anonymous public counters and stores no personal data, and it provides a detailed privacy disclosure about what Stackcut does and does not store. This is highly transparent and adds significant value beyond 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is efficient. The second sentence is a lengthy but necessary privacy disclosure that adds bulk; while it is important, it could arguably be condensed. Overall, the structure is clear and the length is justified by the sensitivity of data handling.

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?

The description covers the purpose, precondition, side effect, and data-handling behavior. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema to clarify that. The main missing piece is the semantics of recipe_id, which is a required parameter and not explained. For a simple three-parameter tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 explain the parameters. It explains the outcome enum by listing the three values, and implies path_id is the replacement path. However, recipe_id is never mentioned or defined, leaving a required parameter without any semantic guidance. This is a notable gap given the low schema coverage.

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 verb 'record' and the resource 'replacement path outcome', specifying the three possible actions (picked, switched, reverted). It also includes a precondition ('Only after the user confirms what they did') and describes the side effect (incrementing anonymous counters). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are about auditing, searching, or building stacks.

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 gives an explicit precondition: use only after the user confirms their action. It also advises against sending personal data or secrets, which is a clear usage constraint. It does not mention alternative tools, but there is no obvious sibling that performs this same reporting function, so the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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