loopgrid.record_action

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does clarify a key behavior: this tool does NOT call Stripe, Salesforce, ServiceNow, or other business systems; it only records supplied evidence. However, it does not address side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or failure behavior.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds a valuable exclusion note. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is too thin for a tool with five parameters, zero schema coverage, and no annotations. An agent would not know how to fill required fields like decision_id/tool or understand the purpose of optional fields. The output schema helps with return shape, but invocation guidance is still largely missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, but it mentions none of the five parameters. It does not clarify what tool, details, actor_id, decision_id, or external_reference mean or how they relate to the recording action.

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 tool records evidence that an external tool/action executed, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also distinguishes itself from tools that would actually invoke business systems, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling record_* tools.

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 the sibling tools like record_decision, record_review, or record_outcome. It implies usage for logging execution evidence but does not state conditions, alternatives, or exclusions beyond not calling external systems.

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