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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is a write operation that persists state, is visible to future sessions through recall/get_site_skill, and accepts a constrained set of outcome values with an optional note. It does not detail append-vs-overwrite behavior, but the annotations already signal non-idempotent and non-destructive traits, lowering the burden.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by the accepted values and the persistence behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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?

For a simple three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics: what to record, allowed values, note format, and cross-session visibility. Minor gaps remain around whether repeated logging appends or overwrites and how the entity_id is obtained, but these do not prevent correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it documents the allowed outcome values, clarifies that note is optional and gives a concrete example, and implicitly defines entity_id as the entity whose outcome is being recorded. entity_id itself is not explicitly described, but the name plus the description context make its meaning reasonably clear.

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 what actually happened with an entity' and defines the domain-specific outcome vocabulary (booked, visited, called, failed, abandoned, other). It also clearly differentiates this write-oriented tool from read-oriented siblings like recall/get_site_skill by framing it as the agent-side 'cookie' for future sessions.

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 clear context: use it to record an actual entity outcome so future sessions can see it via recall/get_site_skill. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the cookie analogy and persistence framing make the intended use case clear.

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