match_record

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

The description discloses key side effects: 'apply the Elo update' and idempotency per (pair, round_id). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well by noting repeat recordings move no Elo. It doesn't mention return format, but that's not a critical gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by criteria guidance and idempotency note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, comparison criteria, rationale expectations, and idempotency behavior. The mode parameter is documented in the schema, so not repeating it is fine. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying what 'rationale' should contain (criteria-based reasoning) and clarifying that round_id controls idempotency/rematching. This extra context lifts it to 4.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Record the outcome of a head-to-head comparison between two hypotheses and apply the Elo update.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling record tools like hypothesis_record and review_record, which serve different purposes.

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 context is clear: use this when you need to record a comparison between two hypotheses and update their Elo ratings. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the head-to-head comparison context is distinct enough. The rationale guidance ('in the terms the criteria are stated in') also adds practical usage direction.

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