record_wear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default behavior (defaults to today when no date is given) and the accepted date format, which the schema does not. It does not say what happens if the item string doesn't match a known item, whether repeated marks are idempotent, or that this is a write operation — meaningful gaps for a mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the date nuance in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves several behaviors unstated rather than merely being efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and only two simple parameters are involved. Still, for an unannotated write tool the description should mention failure behavior for unknown items and whether a call records a new wear entry each time; those omissions leave it only minimally complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains that 'item' is the thing being marked worn and that 'date' accepts a YYYY-MM-DD value or defaults to today. That resolves the ambiguous bare-string and null-default schema for both parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: "Mark an item as worn." That is unambiguous and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like mark_donated or unworn_report, though no sibling is named 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 purpose implies when to call it (recording that an item was worn), and the parenthetical clarifies the two supported date modes. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as suggest_outfit or unworn_report, and no note on whether repeat calls are expected.

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