statsfm_record_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a local-only operation, never touches the network, and persists verdicts as memory for future recommendations. It does not detail return behavior for the 'record' action, but the side-effect profile is transparently conveyed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, the rating values are compactly listed, and the key privacy trait ('never touches the network') is stated in a memorable closing sentence.

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?

For a tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand the tool's purpose, offline behavior, and memory aspect. It does not describe the exact return format or the response_format parameter, but the schema covers parameter details and the tool is conceptually simple.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the rating values and the record/list action split, but these largely duplicate the schema enum and parameter descriptions rather than adding new semantic meaning.

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?

Description uses specific verbs ('Record', 'list') and a clear resource ('local-only taste verdict'), and enumerates the exact rating scale. It also states the local-only nature, which distinguishes it from the similarly named sibling tool 'record_feedback'.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: for local, offline taste memory and future recommendations. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say 'use record_feedback instead', but the 'never touches the network' framing gives strong contextual guidance.

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