record_experience

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains behavioral traits: append-only nature, return format {ok, id}, parameter semantics (status, valid_until_ts, supersedes), and configuration gating (memory_inject). This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 concise (4-5 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description adequately covers functionality, parameter meanings, return type, and relationships to recall_experiences and set_experience_status. It could mention the exact trigger matching mechanism, but overall it's sufficient.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining key parameters: summary (required), triggers (keywords), region (global), status (enum), valid_until_ts (Unix seconds), supersedes (auto-mark). It omits details on source and details but covers core semantics.

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's purpose: recording an experience to Experience Memory for later recall. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall_experiences and set_experience_status.

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 context on when to use the tool (to record experiences) and mentions related tools for recall and status changes. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough.

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