paa_guard_record_refusal

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose the key side effect: the guard blocks re-asking for a cooldown period, which tells the agent this is a mutating, stateful call. But it omits the cooldown length, whether the block is per-topic or global, and what happens if the same topic is recorded twice.

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 tight sentences with the action stated first and the consequence second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence could carry a bit more operational detail at the same length.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the blocking effect, which is the minimum an agent needs. It still leaves the cooldown semantics and the topic-key contract unstated, which matters for correct invocation.

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 single `topic` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does by giving examples of topic types (offer, upsell, plan), but doesn't clarify granularity, format, or whether the string must match a value used elsewhere in the guard family.

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 and resource ('Record that the owner said no to something') and scopes it with concrete examples (offer, upsell, plan). It doesn't explicitly contrast with paa_guard_check or paa_guard_remember, but the record-vs-check distinction is inferable from the wording.

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 trigger condition is implied ('said no to something'), and the second sentence hints at the consequence of not recording it. However, it never names an alternative tool or says when NOT to use it (e.g., use paa_guard_check first to see if a cooldown is already active).

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