log_attempt

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool records data and mutates SM-2 state, which is useful. However, it does not say whether multiple attempts accumulate, whether prior attempts are overwritten, or what scheduling fields are affected.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the primary action and the key side effect efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with four fully documented parameters, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not detail the return value or exact scheduling changes, but those are secondary given the clear action and complete schema.

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 the schema already documents each parameter, including the score rubric and subtopic_id clarification. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, 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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('quiz attempt') and also names the side effect ('update SM-2 scheduling state'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list/get/update tools and leaves no doubt about the action.

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 implies clear usage context: call it when a quiz attempt has been graded and SM-2 scheduling state should be updated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool competes for this action, so the context is sufficient.

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