do_record

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether recording is idempotent, whether it mutates state permanently, what permissions are needed, or how validation failures surface; only the allowed_options constraint is disclosed.

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 text is front-loaded and free of filler, moving from purpose straight to the payload signature. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but every sentence conveys information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and a nested free-form payload, the description omits error behavior and the source of allowed_options, leaving real gaps for an agent.

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 schema exposes only an opaque 'payload' object with zero description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It usefully spells out the payload shape with required markers (decision_id, choice) and an optional field (teacher_cost), though it does not explain what teacher_cost represents or where allowed_options comes from.

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 concrete verb and object ('Record the teacher's choice'), so an agent knows it writes a decision selection. It does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as do_decide, dm_record, or do_outcome, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks, and no stated prerequisites. The only rule given ('choice must be in allowed_options') is a validation constraint rather than selection guidance.

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