record_design_version_outcome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about write semantics, idempotency, whether this feeds calibration/learning models, or what happens to the 11 optional diagnostic fields. The bulk of the text is a Kiln Pro upsell with an upgrade URL, which hints at a subscription gate but never states clearly whether this call will fail without Pro or merely enables extra features.

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 one useful sentence is correctly front-loaded, but roughly two-thirds of the description is marketing copy and an upgrade link that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. That is wasted space in a definition that already under-documents its 15 parameters.

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 15-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain required inputs, the printer/material relationship, and what recording actually triggers. It covers none of that, so an agent has to fall back entirely on a thin, partially documented 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 only 40% across 15 parameters, so the description needed to compensate and does not. Beyond loosely mapping to the required `success` boolean, it never explains scales or meaning for warp_severity, vision_confidence, predicted_adhesion_risk, material, or the cost/time fields, leaving an agent to guess at units and conventions.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: record whether a print succeeded or failed for a design version. That is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings such as record_print_outcome, record_decoration_success, or record_decoration_preset_outcome, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 statement of when to use this versus record_print_outcome or the other outcome-recording siblings, no preconditions (does the version need to exist, must the print be complete?), and no mention of the tier requirement being a real gate. The only 'guidance' is implied by the tool name.

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