record_synthesis

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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) in a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint not in the annotations — the page must be synthesized only from next_synthesis evidence — but says nothing about validation failures, length limits, or overwrite/merge behavior for an existing entity page.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action plus its source constraint is front-loaded. The trailing 'Rules: guide("synthesis")' fragment is terse and slightly cryptic but costs little space.

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 described, but this is a 7-parameter write tool with 6 required fields and the description conveys almost none of their intent or the constraints (maxLength/minLength, required evidence). For a complex mutation tool it is under-specified.

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 only 43%, so the description is expected to compensate for undocumented parameters, yet it explains none of them. Opaque required fields like entity_id and input_digest are left entirely unaddressed in the description, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 (Save) and resource (an entity page), and constrains the source material to next_synthesis evidence, which distinguishes it from the read-side sibling next_synthesis. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool to use instead, so sibling differentiation is implied 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?

The phrase 'written only from next_synthesis evidence' implies the workflow prerequisite (gather evidence via next_synthesis first) and the pointer 'guide("synthesis")' routes the agent to rules. However, no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or step sequencing are given, so usage must be partly inferred.

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