record_consultation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary effect ('record the consultation') and the return value ('Confirmation with consultation ID'), but doesn't disclose prerequisites, failure modes, or whether the operation is reversible. For a logging tool, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a contextual sentence, an Args block, a Returns line, and an Example. Every section serves a purpose, and the content is front-loaded with the main verb and object.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (5 params, 2 required), the description covers purpose, usage trigger, all parameter semantics, return value, and an example. No output schema is provided in the context, but the Returns line clarifies the output. This is complete for an MCP logging tool.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section explains each parameter: query (original query), personas_used (list of consulted personas), session_id, project_root (optional), and synthesis (optional recommendation). This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds meaning beyond the 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?

Description opens with 'Record a consultation in session history,' a specific verb+resource statement. It adds context that it's used after Claude analyzes a query with persona content, helping distinguish from the sibling record_decision. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative 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?

The description states a clear trigger: 'After Claude analyzes a query using persona content, record the consultation for session analytics and history.' This provides clear when-to-use context, but it does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools like record_decision.

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