record_observation

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

Annotations only flag the operation as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that observations are 'separate from disclosed context,' which is useful behavioral context. It does not address duplicate behavior, correction flow, or permissions, but for a simple record operation this is acceptable.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the verb and key constraint are front-loaded. It is somewhat under-specified for the surrounding sibling set, but what is present is efficiently organized.

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?

With 31 sibling tools and several record_* siblings, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent. It omits any differentiation from record_fact, record_trait, or record_interaction and does not clarify what 'disclosed context' means. The output schema covers return values, so that omission is not the issue.

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%, and the description does not explain text, person_id, observed_at, or sensitivity. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory and required fields are visible in the schema, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('subjective observation'), so it clearly states what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling record tools such as record_fact or record_trait, but 'subjective' and 'separate from disclosed context' narrow the meaning.

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 'separate from disclosed context' implies a when-to-use condition, but the description never names alternatives like record_fact or record_interaction. An agent gets only an implied trigger, not explicit guidance or exclusions.

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