record_macro_job

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool records only, does not execute, requires human review of generated_source, and that '<required>' in code blocks run_macro_job. No contradictions.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with a purpose paragraph and an args list. It is front-loaded with critical information. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters (except assumptions), return object, and workflow. It is sufficiently complete for a recording/advisory tool, though error handling is omitted.

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?

The description adds detailed meaning for most parameters (intent, generated_source, proc_name, provenance, confidence) beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, the 'assumptions' parameter is not explained, leaving a minor 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 description clearly states the tool records an AI-authored VBA macro job for execution via RunMacro2. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_macro_job by emphasizing it is advisory only and crosses constraint #2 for tasks outside the verb catalog.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (for tasks outside the standard verb catalog) and when not to use it (it does not execute; instead, use run_macro_job after human review). It also explains the approval workflow, making it clear how to proceed.

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