record_sale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly mentions the key side effect: 'updating revenue and conversion rate,' which indicates a mutating operation. However, it does not address idempotency, prerequisites (e.g., product existence), or failure behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a clean Args block. Every element adds value, with no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two simple parameters.

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 tool's purpose, key side effect, and both parameters, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. However, it does not specify return value or error behavior, and the absence of an output schema means that information might be needed in certain workflows, but the description is largely adequate for a simple recording operation.

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?

The description provides clear definitions for both parameters: 'product_id' is described as 'The ID of the generated product that sold' and 'revenue_usd' as 'The revenue amount for this sale, in USD.' This goes beyond the schema, which has no descriptions, effectively compensating for the 0% 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 tool's function: 'Record a sale event for a product, updating revenue and conversion rate.' This uses a specific verb ('record') with a well-defined resource ('sale event') and explains its effect on metrics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like record_view or track_product_performance.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a sale occurs) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary cases. No reference is made to sibling tools like record_view or track_product_performance, leaving the agent to infer proper usage based on the verb 'sale.'

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