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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral context. It does disclose idempotency and default privacy, which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not explain what happens on conflict, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions or activation conditions are required, or what response the caller should expect.

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 brief and front-loaded: the main action is stated first, followed by key usage notes. All three sentences serve a purpose, but the second sentence is somewhat abstract ('activation and scope') and could be more concretely tied to schema fields without adding much length.

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?

This is a creation tool with nested objects, required fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not define the nested subject and evidence structures, clarify the relationship between subjectId and subject, or specify what constitutes an 'interaction activation.' An agent would struggle to construct a valid record without inferring too much from sibling tools or the schema.

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 compensate. It mentions 'evidence' and 'idempotencyKey,' but the record object's required fields (title, summary, evidence) and optional fields (roomId, subject, visibility, provenance, etc.) are not explained. The phrase 'explicit interaction activation and scope' does not clearly map to any named parameter, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 an interaction with evidence.' It clearly conveys the core purpose and references the evidence array required by the schema. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like create_attestation, create_offer, or revise_interaction, so the differentiation is implicit.

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 useful guidance about prerequisites ('Requires explicit interaction activation and scope') and retry behavior ('Reuse idempotencyKey on retry'). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of list_interactions, read_interaction, or revise_interaction, nor does it describe exclusions or alternatives.

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