Answer whether Trood may record usage

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real context beyond that: the recorded scope is limited to which tools were used and whether they worked, explicitly never code, files, documents, or typed input, and the setting is reversible on request. It does not describe what the call returns, but no output schema exists and the response is minor for a single-answer setter.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource being set. Quoting the full consent question verbatim is long but justified because the recorded value is an answer to that exact wording.

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 one-parameter consent setter with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, what is and isn't recorded, and reversibility. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the answer enum is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning on top: the value must be what the person actually said rather than an agent's inference, which is the key semantic constraint on this parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Records') and a precise resource (the person's answer to a quoted consent question), so an agent knows exactly what this tool writes. It is clearly separable from read-oriented siblings like show_my_trood_data, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Only call it with what the person actually said' is an explicit when/when-not constraint: no inferred or assumed answers. The note that the person can change it at any time implies legitimate repeat invocation, but no alternative tool or explicit exclusion is named.

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