wiki_record_episode

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It implies a mutation but never states whether recording is idempotent, what happens on a duplicate episode_id, whether auth is required, whether the graph link is validated, or what happens if relations reference unknown nodes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently written, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's 7-parameter surface.

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 write tool with 7 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent knows the general intent but not how to fill the required fields, what the macro-graph linkage does, or what confirmation is returned.

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% across 7 parameters (5 required), so the description must compensate and does not. 'Link it' faintly hints at the relations array and 'completed' at outcome_status, but episode_id, title, goal, skills_used, and learned_summary receive no explanation of format, expected granularity, or content.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Record') and a specific resource ('a completed agentic task episode') plus a secondary effect (linking in the High-Level Macro-Graph). That is enough for an agent to know this is the write/persistence tool, distinct from lookup-style siblings like wiki_search or wiki_navigate, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 word 'completed' implies a precondition (only finished episodes), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what should NOT be recorded, and no pointer to alternative tools. An agent must infer the placement of this tool in a broader workflow.

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