kira_record_failure

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

Discloses key behaviors: local storage path, sanitization of personal data ('keys, paths, emails redacted'), and side effect of influencing future runs. Annotations are non-contradictory; description adds significant context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is clear and front-loaded but longer than necessary; includes some explanatory phrases that could be trimmed (e.g., 'so future runs on this machine can avoid the same wall'). Still 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, privacy, and storage location. Lacks mention of return value or idempotency, but overall comprehensive.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaningful context, explaining how each parameter is used (e.g., 'title becomes the scar title', 'mistake is what the agent did wrong', 'instead is the fix'), plus sanitization detail.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'capture' and resource 'personal scar', explicitly distinguishing itself as local-only failure notes stored under ~/.kira/personal-scars/, differentiating from siblings like kira_share_scar.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'immediately after a task needed extra attempts or threw an error.' Notes privacy constraints ('never uploaded'), implying when not to use (if sharing is needed), but does not name specific alternative tools.

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