Record LSP references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description compensates fully. It discloses side effects ('writes or replaces code graph reference rows'), output shape ('import counts and status'), and failure modes ('malformed reference payloads or invalid workspace ids are rejected'). This is comprehensive and does not contradict any annotations.

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 structured with clear headings (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes) and each section is a single concise line. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 the tool complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage timing, inputs, side effects, output summary, and failure modes. No gaps remain for an AI agent to decide or invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with each parameter already well-described (e.g., workspace_id: 'Workspace UUID receiving LSP reference edges'). The description only lists the parameter names, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 purpose: 'Import language-server reference edges into the code graph.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools that record other types of data (e.g., record_agent_action, record_changeset).

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 explicit guidance: 'call after collecting definitions or references from an external LSP client.' This clarifies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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