prefer_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a telemetry consent prerequisite and the winner format constraint, but does not describe the broader effect of recording, reversibility, or side effects. It adds some behavioral context but is not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a key constraint, a prerequisite, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and a prerequisite. It does not detail post-recording behavior or edge cases, but the output schema likely covers returns, making it fairly complete. Minor gaps remain on what the recording affects.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: candidate_a/b as Id/URI/label, winner as 'a','b', or id, reason as optional with an example, and user_prompt for telemetry. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 clearly states the verb 'Record' and the resource 'pairwise preference between two candidate actions or auditions', and clarifies the winner format. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like record_audition, though it could be slightly more precise about what 'candidate' refers to in context.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rate_last_action or record_audition. It only notes a telemetry consent requirement, but does not state conditions for selection or exclusions.

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