record_response

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility and excels by disclosing forced do_not_contact triggers (bounce, opt-out reasons, cap reached), cap-related recontact window behavior, and auto-creation of prospects via `decision_maker_pointer`. All significant side effects are transparently spelled out.

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?

Every sentence packs meaningful business logic, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is a dense single paragraph that could benefit from bullet points or breaks to improve scannability and comprehension.

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?

The description covers the non-obvious conditional behaviors (bounce, cap, deferral, derived prospects) integral to using the tool correctly. Given no output schema, it stops short of describing return values or error handling, which is a minor gap given the tool's complexity.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains the meaning of `responseType` values (e.g., bounce forces DNC), the `rejectionFeedback` nuances (e.g., wrong_timing/budget leads to deferred status), and the role of `markDoNotContact` relative to forced behavior. This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states 'Record a response (email reply, SNS DM, etc.) to an outreach' which identifies the action and resource, and it accurately distinguishes from related tools like `record_outreach` and `record_outreach_with_inquiry`. It also outlines primary side effects ('updates prospect status and marks do-not-contact'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context about when to use the tool and detailed conditional logic (e.g., 'rejectionFeedback with wrong_timing/budget plus a recontact window sets status=deferred'). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, such as for outbound outreach, which would elevate it to a 5.

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