record_learning

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

The description indicates the tool persists data (write operation), consistent with readOnlyHint=false, but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as whether settings are merged or overwritten, what happens if the family already exists, or any side effects on existing data. Annotations provide only readOnlyHint, so description should fill gaps but does not fully.

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 moderately concise but includes inline examples that add verbosity. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the examples could be more succinctly presented. It remains readable and functional.

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 basic usage and provides a special case for new families, but misses important behavioral details like merge/overwrite behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required. The description is adequate but incomplete for a production tool.

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 by explaining the 'updates' parameter with detailed examples of the guidance shape, clarifying 'source' as 'URL/model page', and explaining the 'family' parameter's behavior for new families (including detect block). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 purpose: 'Persist researched settings so FUTURE sessions start smarter.' It specifies verb ('persist') and resource ('settings'), and distinguishes from siblings by its unique function of recording guidance parameters for future use. Examples clarify the type of settings.

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 provides implicit usage context (e.g., 'Any family name works; for a NEW family also include a detect block'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling comparison or exclusion criteria are given.

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