record_metric

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine side effect — that recordings feed cumulative bandwidth and cost aggregates — but omits whether repeated calls double-count, idempotency, permission requirements, or what the call 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. Every clause (bytes, tier, cumulative bandwidth, cost savings) carries information the agent needs.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the purpose but not the return value, error behavior, or the aggregation semantics an agent would need to call it safely. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 both parameters documented (including the tier enum), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'bytes transferred and tier used' and adds no format, unit, or valid-range detail beyond it.

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 verb and resource ('Records bytes transferred and tier used') plus the downstream effect (calculating cumulative bandwidth and cost savings), which clearly separates it from the read-only sibling get_bandwidth_savings. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., an active routed request), and no mention of the read counterpart get_bandwidth_savings. The downstream calculation purpose only implies that it is called after a transfer, leaving selection logic to inference.

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