log_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the action 'Create' but does not describe side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or permissions. It does add a useful note about omitting baby_id and references describe_resources for schema, but for a mutation tool this is thin on transparency.

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 extremely concise, leading with the core purpose, then explaining parameters and providing an example. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

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 create tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it gives an example, references describe_resources for schemas, and includes a domain-specific rule. It does not mention return values, errors, or what happens on success, which are gaps, but for a straightforward create operation it is adequate.

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 that 'resource' is a known record type and 'data' follows its schema, plus gives an example that illustrates both parameters. It also provides a parameter-specific hint (omit baby_id) that adds semantic value beyond the schema's bare types.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('record'), and clarifies the structure with resource and data. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, but the verb 'Create' clearly distinguishes it from update_record, delete_record, and search_records. The example further reinforces purpose.

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 description implies usage for creating new records and provides a concrete example, plus a specific rule about omitting baby_id for single-baby mothers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or direct users to alternatives like update_record for modifications. The pointer to describe_resources helps but is not an explicit exclusion.

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