record_scar_usage

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this tool creates a record, any side effects, or required permissions. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond its name.

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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded. It wastes no words, but it may be too terse for a tool with 11 parameters. Every word earns its place, but additional context would be beneficial.

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 has 11 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, interpretation of 'effectiveness measurement', or why certain parameters (e.g., 'variant_id') are needed. The agent would lack context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage describing all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the tool's purpose. 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 uses the verb 'Track' and specifies the resource 'scar application' with a clear goal 'for effectiveness measurement'. However, it could be more specific about the action (e.g., 'record' vs 'track'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'confirm_scars' or 'reflect_scars' implicitly.

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 its use for recording scar application events, but it provides no explicit context about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'confirm_scars', 'reflect_scars'). No when-not-to-use guidance.

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