record_attempt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys useful behavioral rules (immediacy, one approach per call), but it does not disclose side effects such as whether the attempt record is persistent, append-only, or editable later.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the action and timing, the second adds a decisive batching rule. Every word earns its place.

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?

With the output schema present and all parameters documented, this is nearly complete for a simple logging tool. It lacks only a quick pointer to when record_fix or log_issue should be used instead, and the absence of annotations leaves persistence behavior implicit.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description (outcome values, summary purpose, issue_id format, location format). The description adds only general call-granularity context, not per-parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a precise action and object—record a fix attempt—and adds scope with 'after it fails, partially works, or works' and 'each distinct approach is its own call.' This is specific enough for an agent to distinguish attempt logging from generic issue/note 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?

It clearly states when to call ('IMMEDIATELY after...') and gives an explicit anti-pattern ('never batch them'). It does not name sibling tools such as record_fix or log_issue, so it stops short of a full when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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