record_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the finding is emphasized and separately queryable, implying a persistent create operation. However, it does not explicitly state that this creates a new record, nor mention side effects, error conditions, or return behavior.

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 two short sentences with the action front-loaded and then the key benefit/context added. There is no filler, repetition of schema fields, or unnecessary detail.

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 create-focused tool with an output schema and well-described parameters, the description covers the core intent and distinctive outcome. It lacks explicit usage boundaries and finer side-effect detail, but the schema and finding-focused sibling names fill in much of the remaining context.

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 86%, so most parameters (title, body, evidence, node_ids, confidence, tags) are already described in the schema. The description adds only conceptual framing around 'gold insight' rather than parameter-specific detail, 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 states a concrete action (못박는다/records) and a specific resource (critical insight/gold findings), and explains that these findings are kept separate from structural nodes. It is unambiguous about the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly contrast with finding-management siblings like update_finding or cite.

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?

It gives clear context: use this when AI analysis surfaces a decisive insight that should be preserved and not buried among thousands of nodes. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full routing guideline.

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