record_compaction_audit

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is idempotent, requires specific permissions, or how conflicts are handled. Only implies a write operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action, then purpose. No wasted words.

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?

High parameter count (7) with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. Description covers high-level purpose but lacks specifics needed for correct invocation. Insufficient for an agent to use reliably.

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% (no individual parameter descriptions). The description mentions 'token counts' and 'what was re-injected' but does not map to the 7 parameters, provide formats, constraints, or required values. Agents have no guidance on filling 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?

Description clearly states action ('Record a context-compaction event') and specific data elements ('token counts and what was re-injected'). Explains developer value: auditing what was remembered across compaction boundaries. Distinct from siblings like get_compaction_audit and other record_* tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling list includes get_compaction_audit for reading, but no comparison or exclusion criteria provided.

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