Log a real-world outcome for a graded prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the logging action and data collected but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a logging tool, the description is adequate but not rich; it assumes the agent understands it is write-only and non-destructive.

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?

Two sentences: the first enumerates key fields concisely, the second explains the strategic value. Every word contributes. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's role in the workflow (post-grade_prompt), what data it collects, and why it matters. It could be improved by mentioning the return value (e.g., taskId or confirmation), but it is largely complete for a logging tool.

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 100% (all 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds contextual value by explaining the significance of 'namedRootCauseAndLocation' as the strongest predictor, but it does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('records') and resource ('real-world outcome for a graded prompt'), listing concrete fields (succeeded, turns, scope creep, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'grade_prompt' which scores before use, and explains the broader context of Promptest MCP analytics.

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 the tool should be used after a prompt has been used and previously scored via grade_prompt. It also explains the value ('lets Promptest MCP tell you what actually predicts good outcomes'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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