record_facts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses deep-merge behavior, return format (merged record plus missing fields), and error responses on rejection. However, it doesn't explain what causes rejection or prerequisites like whether a record must already exist, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise—three sentences covering purpose, usage pattern, and exclusions—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Slight downside is that the return format is crammed into the second sentence, making it dense, but overall well-structured.

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's complexity (nested patch object, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: when to call, what to include, what to avoid, and what to expect in the response. It misses directory semantics and error code specifics, but it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'patch' parameter by listing acceptable fact fields (language, framework, etc.) and explicitly excludes author fields. However, the 'directory' parameter is not explained at all, and no details are given about value formats or required structure.

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 the tool records creation facts (language, framework, runtime, dependencies, repository identity, timestamp) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling finalize_record by excluding author-only fields. The verb 'Record' plus resource specification leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'call it as often as facts arrive' and a direct exclusion—'Do NOT use this for created_by, maintained_by or model_access.mode -- those are the author's to confirm via finalize_record.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool and when not, referencing the alternative tool.

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