record_land_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral implications. It says it copies and lands data, implying a write operation, but does not say whether files are overwritten, whether comments become permanent/timeline-visible, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur.

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 compact sentence with two clear actions and no filler. It loses a point because the compressed jargon ('ACK'd', 'land') makes the sentence denser than is helpful.

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 no annotations, an output schema, and a compound record/comment side effect, the description omits prerequisites, postconditions, and return information. The agent cannot tell what state must exist (acknowledged keepers, a recording session) before calling it.

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 0%, and the description never mentions project_path or explains how it relates to raw/ or the timeline. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantics beyond the 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 names concrete actions: copying ACK'd keepers into raw/ and landing live comments on the timeline, so it is not a tautology. However, it relies on unexplained domain jargon ('ACK'd keepers', 'land live comments') and does not differentiate itself from comment-related siblings such as add_comment_tool or record_stop_tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many record, comment, or state-management siblings. The word 'ACK'd' implies it should run after acknowledgment, but that condition is left to inference.

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