record_extraction

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that re-recording a page replaces the prior record, which explains the overwrite semantics the agent must understand. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or partial-failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the overwrite caveat, then the rules pointer. No waste, though the guide reference is terse enough to feel like a pointer rather than guidance.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the overwrite behavior is stated. However, for a 6-required-parameter mutation tool with 17% schema coverage, the meaning of uid, content_sha256, and the run linkage is left undocumented, which is a meaningful gap.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is only 17%: uid, content_sha256, page, entities, and relationships carry no schema descriptions, and the description does not explain them either. It only implies a per-page scope; the run linkage and hashing parameters remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb ('Record') and resource (entities and relationships extracted from one page), and the parenthetical clarifies scope. It does not name a contrasting sibling like find_entities or merge_entities, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only usage directive is 'Rules: guide("extraction")', which routes the agent to a rules source rather than stating when to call this versus alternatives. It implies this is part of the extraction workflow but leaves conditions and prerequisites to inference.

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