graph_record_session

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that a session is recorded and linked to related files, implying a write operation, but it does not disclose side effects, whether a new node is created, whether existing sessions are overwritten, or any persistence/error behavior. The agent is left with only a high-level purpose.

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 states the action, the object, the key content, and the linking behavior in minimal space, and every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 schema covers the parameters well, and the description conveys the core purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, what side effects to expect, and what the tool returns after recording. It is adequate for a simple mutation but not fully complete.

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 fields topic, bugs, decisions, and related_paths are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds a minor contextual link ('linked to related files') but no meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a specific verb ('Record'), a clear resource ('discussion/debug session'), and specifies the key content (decisions, bugs, related files). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling read/analysis tools like graph_query_context and graph_impact_analysis, since this tool is about creating/persisting a session record rather than querying graph context.

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 'Record a discussion/debug session' implies when the tool should be used, but the description never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any when-not-to-use conditions. Sibling tool names suggest the broader graph context, but no alternative routing is provided.

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