remember_failure

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

Annotations provide no meaningful behavioral hints (all false), so the description must disclose side effects. It mentions 'record one failure' and 'deduplication review', which hints at a write operation and possible duplicate handling, but it does not explain what happens when a failure is not warranted, whether the operation is reversible, or any other side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It uses an active verb and clearly outlines the tool's purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested schema, no output schema, and unhelpful annotations, this one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, return behavior, or conditions for use, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema structure without semantic guidance.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and 7 complex nested parameters, but the description only offers high-level hints like 'root cause', 'repair', and 'proposed lesson'. It does not clarify the required 'summary' and 'classification' parameters, nor the structure of nested objects like 'cause', 'observed', or 'expectation'.

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 records a single failure along with root cause, repair, deduplication review, and proposed lesson. It uses a specific verb (record) and resource (failure), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool recall_failure_lessons that retrieves lessons.

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 phrase 'only when warranted' implies a gatekeeping condition, suggesting the tool should not be used for every issue, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention the sibling tool as the alternative for retrieval. The usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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