Add a runbook entry

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosure. It clearly indicates a write operation ('Record') but does not mention whether entries can duplicate, whether it overwrites, or any side effects. Lacks details on idempotency or persistence.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and purpose. No wasted words.

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 simple add operation with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context about when to use it versus runbook_search and does not mention the optional tags or symptoms parameters. No output schema means return behavior is undisclosed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'symptom and its fix', which aligns with the parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Record' and identifies the resource ('a new symptom and its fix' in 'the local runbook'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like runbook_search by indicating an add operation.

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 description implies usage when someone has discovered a symptom and fix to preserve, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or state when not to use. No exclusion or comparison to runbook_search is provided.

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