record_experience

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that repeated calls for the same project+task overwrite the previous experience (update semantics), and it explicitly forbids recording sensitive data. It doesn't note failure modes or that calls may overwrite irreversibly, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the trigger conditions, then states the purpose, update behavior, and security constraint. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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 record/update tool with no output schema and 4 parameters (2 required), the description covers when to call, what it stores, update semantics, and prohibited content. The schema provides param types and descriptions; nothing essential is missing.

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 covers 75% of params with descriptionscars (task, successful_workflow, problems_and_fixes have descriptions; only project lacks one). The description adds important semantics: it explains the update key (project + task) and warns not to include secrets, which meaningfully supplements the schema. Adequate value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (record), the resource (experience), and the exact trigger conditions (after problems with eventual success, or when validating a reusable workflow). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remember and update_project by framing a persistent, deduplicating experience store tied to task+project.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: after a task succeeds following problems, or upon first validating a reusable workflow. It also gives a negative rule (what not to record: secrets), which effectively tells the agent when NOT to use it. This is clear, actionable guidance without needing to read the siblings.

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