pulse_map_record_transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that verified transitions affect route planning, but it does not explain permissions, whether recording is idempotent, what happens to unverified transitions, or what the operation returns.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful constraint about verified transitions.

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 five required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It gives purpose and one behavioral note, but it does not provide enough context to confidently invoke the tool without inspecting or guessing from the schema.

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?

All five parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description only partially clarifies the 'verified' parameter's effect on route planning. It says nothing about app_id, source, target, or anchor_id, leaving most required inputs semantically undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Record a transition.' It also indirectly connects the tool to route planning, but it does not define what a transition is or explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like pulse_map_route or pulse_map_get.

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 only guidance is 'Only verified transitions are used by route planning,' which implies a condition for verified transitions but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are named or contrasted.

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