record_page_flow

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals a write operation, and the description's 'Persist' matches that. The description adds the 'draft' and 'later replay' context but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does without any filler. Every word 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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotation support, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It omits prerequisites (e.g., active page), return behavior, and parameter meaning, making it incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has zero property descriptions and the tool description does not explain the meaning of 'name', 'taskId', or 'actions'. The phrase 'page interaction flow draft' only vaguely hints at 'actions', but the agent is left without concrete parameter semantics.

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 'Persist' and a clear resource 'a page interaction flow draft', which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling 'replay_page_flow'. It also mentions the purpose 'for later replay and evidence reuse', making the intent unmistakable.

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 'for later replay and evidence reuse' provides a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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