record_tuning_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'persist,' implying a write operation, but omits details like idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, or return value structure. The output schema exists but is not mentioned.

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 description is extremely concise (one short sentence), but its brevity sacrifices usefulness. It could be structured with key details like parameter roles or usage notes without becoming verbose.

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 the complexity of 6 parameters, many sibling tools, and an existing output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it integrates with other tools, or what constitutes a valid tuning decision.

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 0% (no descriptions in the input schema), and the tool description adds no explanation of the 6 parameters, including the 2 required ones (baseline_run_id, candidate_run_id). The agent has no semantic help beyond property names.

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 clearly states the verb 'persist' and the resource 'a local tuning decision for one preview comparison,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'compare_preview_runs' or 'record_preview_feedback.' However, it lacks specificity about what a 'tuning decision' entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many related siblings (e.g., compare_preview_runs, record_preview_feedback, record_tuning_session_step), the description should indicate prerequisites or typical workflow position.

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