create_record

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

Annotations correctly indicate destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false (implying mutation). The description has no contradiction but does not add much beyond the annotation—except the critical side-effect that unattached records are invisible. This extra constraint is valuable, but other behaviors like required permissions or response format are not disclosed, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 one sentence plus the critical warning. It is concise, front-loads the action and key constraint, and every word adds value. No filler.

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 tool has 7 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage guidance (the dependency on UUIDs) and the purpose. It could mention what happens on success/failure or permissions, but it's sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds the critical relationship between animal_ids/group_ids and the need to pass at least one, which is not fully clear from schema defaults. That adds semantic value, but not a huge amount beyond the schema.

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 'Create a record... and attach it to animals and/or groups' with a concrete event type list (feeding, health treatment, movement). It explicitly distinguishes the target resource (record) and its associations, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like update_record or delete_record.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: 'Always pass at least one resolved animal or group UUID — a record attached to nothing will not appear in any animal's history.' This states a critical condition for use, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or mention alternatives. Still, the constraint is actionable and guides the agent to avoid misuse.

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