add_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses server-assigned fields, validation behavior, return behavior, and a specific refusal condition when quoted text is repeated in other fields. It does not mention permissions or broader side effects, but the core mutation behavior is well explained.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds necessary field-level constraints. It is dense but mostly earns its length, though some long clauses could be split for easier parsing.

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 three required parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description supplies substantial operational and field-level guidance. The main gap is the unexplained `path` parameter and lack of complete nested-object mapping; return-value details are covered by the output schema and need not be repeated.

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 must compensate for opaque object parameters. It significantly clarifies record and provenance fields, including quote-related fields, allowed source-text placement, and which fields must be written in the agent's own words; however, it does not explain the `path` parameter or fully map the nested object structure.

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 specific operation: appending a record, with server-side assignment of IDs and validation. It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_record and find_records, but it does not explicitly contrast with validate_record or other mutation siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Append a record', and the description gives important in-record constraints. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of validate_record, create_ledger, or other siblings, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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