record_chemical_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature ('Record') and a real gating constraint ('Requires Kiln Business'), which is genuine behavioral context. However it says nothing about what gets persisted, idempotency, permissions beyond tier, or what the result value should represent, leaving major gaps.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and effective, but the remaining lines are promotional upsell ('Business adds team review, approval gates, and 3 printers (grow to 50)') that do not help the agent invoke the tool and dilute the signal.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and tier only. It omits parameter meaning, expected input formats, and behavioral consequences, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 63%, and crucially the three required parameters (material, reagent, result) have no schema descriptions at all; the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not explain what format 'result' should take or what 'reagent' means, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 first sentence states a clear verb+resource: recording how a printed part held up to a chemical, with the 'so Kiln learns' framing signalling a feedback/outcome tool. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like record_skin_contact_outcome, record_load_outcome, or check_chemical_resistance, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The tier gating ('Requires Kiln Business') is a prerequisite, not usage guidance, and nothing tells the agent how this relates to check_chemical_resistance or the other record_*_outcome tools.

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