record_mistake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavior: appending without deduplicating history, which helps the agent understand duplicates are allowed. However, it omits other important traits like permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects beyond the basic append.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an exemplar of concision.

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 nine parameters and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks practical context on when to record a mistake, what the required fields mean, or any workflow guidance. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value uncertainty but does not compensate for the missing usage and parameter context.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the nine parameters. It provides only a general sense of 'mistake' without mapping to fields, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for parameters like activity_type and problem_type.

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 a specific verb 'append' and identifies the resource as 'learning mistake,' clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like search_items or submit_review. The phrase 'without deduplicating history' adds a critical behavioral nuance that sets it apart.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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