record_actual

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds behavioral context: actuals feed into a self-improvement loop for automatic correction factor updates. No annotation contradictions. Lacks details on return value or side effects, but sufficient for a straightforward write tool.

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?

Three concise sentences. The first sentence states the main action and purpose. The second provides pairing context. The third explains the system behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential workflow: obtaining estimate_id, submitting actuals, and the resulting improvement loop. It does not mention the batch sibling alternative or potential errors, but it is adequate for a single-record submission 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the inputs (e.g., actual_hours for hours spent, estimate_id from estimate response) and the system effect. This helps the agent understand the workflow.

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 action ('Submit actual hours'), the target resource ('a previous estimate'), and the purpose ('improve future accuracy'). It distinguishes from sibling estimation tools by highlighting the pairing with any estimation tool and the self-improvement loop.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use: after obtaining an estimate and to feed into self-improvement. Mentions estimate_id origin from estimate response. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling batch_record_actuals tool or state when not to use it. Still, it gives clear context.

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