record_interaction

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

Annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those traits. The description adds the 'after validating all participants' precondition, but does not disclose what happens if validation fails, whether duplicates are possible, or what side effects recording may have.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. 'After validating all participants' earns its place as a meaningful precondition, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 five parameters, no schema-level descriptions, and a large sibling set, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the optional parameters and the meaning of 'validating all participants' remain significant gaps.

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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only weakly maps to 'summary' via 'interaction summary' and to 'participant_ids' via 'all participants', leaving channel, occurred_at, and sensitivity entirely unexplained.

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 identifies a specific action ('Record') and a specific resource ('interaction summary'), which distinguishes it from sibling record_* tools such as record_fact or record_observation. The phrase 'after validating all participants' adds useful context, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with similar siblings.

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 'after validating all participants' implies a sequencing requirement, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over record_fact, record_observation, or other sibling tools, nor any when-not-to-use instructions.

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