record_magnet_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. It reveals only the Pro-gating constraint ('Requires Kiln Pro'); it does not say whether this is a write that updates calibration/learning state, whether records are idempotent or overwritable, or what the call returns. Most of the remaining text is a pricing upsell rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 actionable content is the first line, which is front-loaded well. But two of the four sentences are a marketing blurb and a tracking URL that duplicate the '(Pro)' marker, and 'Requires Kiln Pro' restates what the title already signalled - substantial waste in a short description.

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 unannotated 8-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description should explain the record's effect and the key inputs. Instead it stops at a one-line purpose plus an upsell, leaving an agent unable to tell what a successful call does to calibration data or what values are valid.

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 three required parameters (family, result, retention_method) have no schema descriptions at all. The description adds no meaning to any parameter - no allowed values for result, no explanation of retention_method or how load_mode/printer_id scope the record - so it fails to compensate for the mid-level coverage 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Record whether a magnet actually held') and names the sibling it should be displaced by ('Prefer record_hardware_outcome'), so the agent can route without opening the schema. It falls short of 5 because the purpose statement is scoped only by '(Pro)' and never says what 'outcome' values or records actually capture.

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?

'Prefer record_hardware_outcome' is an explicit alternative and implies this tool is the magnet-specific fallback. However, it never states the condition under which this tool IS the right choice (versus the general hardware recorder), so a strict when/when-not is not present.

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