mistake

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Record' which implies a write operation, but gives no details on side effects, persistence, idempotency, return values, or required permissions. The purpose clause ('so you don't repeat it') is motivational, not behavioral.

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 filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple recording tool, though it could benefit from more context without becoming bloated.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (3 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It does not mention the required input fields, any side effects, or how this integrates with sibling tools. The agent is left to infer most operational details from the schema alone.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but it also does not conflict with the schema. The schema already explains 'what', 'why', 'tags', and 'files' adequately.

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 action ('Record') and the target resource ('something that failed'), plus the intended benefit ('so you don't repeat it'). It is not a tautology and meaningfully distinguishes from the name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'learned' or 'recall', which could have overlapping 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a use case (when something fails) but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers. Sibling tools are listed but not described, so the agent cannot make an informed choice.

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