record_fact

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that `sensitivity` defaults to `personal` and that `sensitive` and `restricted` records are withheld from ordinary reads, which is not apparent from the annotations.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a high-value behavioral note and a sibling routing tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters and an output schema, the description provides a reasonable starting point but leaves gaps. It clarifies sensitivity behavior and one alternative tool, yet it does not clarify fact structure, time-range semantics, or how `predicate` and `value` should be formed, making it incomplete for a write tool with this many parameters.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It provides useful semantics for `sensitivity` and vaguely signals `valid_from`/`valid_to` through 'time-aware', but it does not explain `person_id`, `predicate`, `value`, or `confidence`, leaving major parameters underdocumented.

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 identifies the action ('Record'), the resource ('a time-aware fact'), and the target ('an existing person'). It also hints at differentiation from the sibling `remember` tool, though it does not distinguish itself from other record_* siblings like `record_observation` or `record_trait`.

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 explicitly advises using `remember` instead for a single statement named by a person's name, giving a clear routing signal. It does not, however, discuss when to prefer `record_fact` over other related tools such as `record_observation` or `record_trait`.

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