record_failure_mode

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

Annotations already disclose idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description aligns with readOnlyHint=false by indicating a write operation. The description adds little beyond 'reusable' to characterize behavior, but given the annotation coverage this is adequate.

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 concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Despite annotations covering idempotency and an output schema being present, the description leaves important invocation details unclear, especially what constitutes a 'signature', what run_id and node_id refer to, and when this is preferred over sibling recording tools. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 provides no meaning for run_id, node_id, signature, summary, or artifact_uri. With low schema coverage the description needed to compensate, but it does not explain what any parameter represents.

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 a clear resource ('reusable failure pattern or bug signature'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like record_decision or write_project_memory by naming the failure-mode domain explicitly.

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 implies clear usage context: use this tool when you need to persist a failure pattern or bug signature for reuse. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like record_decision or write_project_memory, so it lacks the when-not/exclusion guidance needed for a 5.

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