record_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses side effects: creates guion.json if absent, appends an entry, and extracts specific stats (loglik, AIC, BIC, etc.). It also notes auto-assignment of 'name' if empty. While it omits error handling and permissions, the core behaviors are made explicitly visible.

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 well-organized: a high-level summary followed by a bulleted parameter list. Every line contributes useful information, and there's no fluff. It is slightly longer than necessary, but the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the workflow and all parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a success message, written entry, or stats summary). It also lacks explicit prerequisites or error conditions. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a noticeable gap, keeping it at a 3.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Parameters' section provides a one-line explanation for each of the 7 parameters, adding meaning beyond the bare schema titles. For example, 'name' is described as 'version name, e.g. "PC3"; auto-assigned ("PC{n}") if empty.' This is helpful but not deeply detailed, so a 4 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Load, fit and record a model version in guion.json.' It then details the exact sequence (load from inp_path, fit, extract stats, append entry) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_guion (export) and compare_versions (compare). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 a workflow: after having an .inp file, you load, fit, and record. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions (e.g., 'use only when you need to persist a version'). The usage context is clear but unstated as a guideline.

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