rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by stating the result goes 'into the change log next to the numbers,' which discloses the persistence side effect. It does not detail overwrite behavior or prerequisites, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core action, and omits filler. Every clause earns its place: verdict values, optional note, and the change-log destination.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the necessary verdict semantics and side-effect context. The main remaining gap is defining what 'kept proposal' means precisely, but this is likely domain context an agent would already have.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying the verdict parameter's allowed values ('good' or 'bad'), noting that the note is optional, and implicitly linking proposal_id to the kept proposal. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema field 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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and a clear resource ('a kept proposal'), and states exactly what is recorded: a verdict of 'good' or 'bad' plus an optional note. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like history, compare, or verify.

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 provides a clear context for use: after a proposal has been kept)Skip, you record how it sounded. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended scenario is concrete enough to guide selection.

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