khwan_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that calling this tool persists state, learns, and returns next-turn prompts or an acknowledgement, which matters because this is a stateful write-like operation. It doesn't cover failure modes or idempotency, but it does address the most impactful behavior: the record affects future turns.

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 description is appropriately short and front-loaded with the action and intent. The Args/Returns format is scannable, though the same message that the interplay between the initial sentence and the Returns line, keeping it slightly noise. Still, every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two required string parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: when to call it, where the token comes from, and what the return will be. It could mention error cases or reiterating confirmation requirement more explicitly, but enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, yet the description adds precise meaning to both required parameters. turn_token is defined as the exact token returned by the matching khwan_prepare, and answer is identified as the actual answer given to the user for that turn—far beyond the schema's simple string types.

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 action with a clear resource: hand the answer back to Khwan AFTER replying, so that the interaction persists and Khwan learns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling workflow by pointing back to khwan_prepare, making the tool's role in a two-step process explicit.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance (AFTER you reply) and explains the exact required input provenance (the token returned by khwan_prepare). This is enough for an agent to know when to call this tool versus the prepare tool, and the sentence about matching token prevents misuse.

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