track_user_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It does mention that the user's risk profile is updated, which signals a mutation, but it omits persistence details, permission requirements, reversibility, rate limits, and what the tool returns.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and side effect, then adds the purpose. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain the persistent state change, expected return values, and operational constraints. It states that a risk profile is updated but leaves the agent without enough context to know what happens after the call or how the update is surfaced.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action — tracking a user message and updating the user's risk profile — and adds the purpose of enabling pattern detection across messages. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as check_profanity, analyze_context, or get_user_profile.

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 phrase 'enables pattern detection across messages' implies usage for ongoing user-level risk tracking rather than one-off content checks. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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