record_training_attempt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotency tied to attempt identity, which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether re-submission mutates existing records, or error behavior on conflicting attempt_ids.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the documentation gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with 0% parameter documentation, no annotations, and four required inputs, the definition leaves the agent guessing about argument formats and write semantics for a state-mutating tool.

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% and all four parameters are undocumented. The description maps loosely to was_successful (outcome) and attempt_id (attempt identity), but learner_id and puzzle_id are given no meaning, nor are formats or constraints.

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 (record) and resource (training outcome/attempt), and the idempotency qualifier hints at the distinct semantics versus a generic write. It is reasonably distinguishable, though it never names a sibling it should be preferred over.

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?

'explicitly reported training outcome' implies the caller is passing a known result rather than triggering evaluation, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative among the many sibling analysis/lesson tools.

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