record_interaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a write/mutation operation, whether interactions are append-only, whether person_name must already exist (vs being created), data retention behavior, or any error conditions for invalid dates or unknown persons. Given the tool records data, this silent mutational behavior is a notable gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource and adds value by enumerating example interaction types. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simple scope.

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 tool has 4 params with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a mutation behavior. The output schema is present but the description still leaves significant ambiguity: what values are valid for 'channel', does 'person_name' need to pre-exist in the system (possibly relevant to sibling 'search_people'/'get_person'), and what date format does 'happened_on' expect? For a recording tool, these are important operational details missing from the description.

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 the 4 undocumented parameters. However, the description does enumerate interaction types (call, meeting, message, meal) which hints at what might go into 'channel' or 'summary'. It doesn't explain what format 'happened_on' takes, what values 'channel' accepts, or what 'person_name' semantics are (must it be an existing record?). With 0% coverage and no enrichment, score 3 is the fair mid-point.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') with a resource ('interaction') and enumerates the kinds of interactions it covers (call, meeting, message, meal, or other). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_fact' and 'remember_person' by focusing on dated interactions rather than general facts or people profiles.

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 implies usage context ('record a dated interaction') but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Among siblings like 'add_fact', it's clear this is for temporal touchpoints vs. standalone facts, but the boundary isn't explicitly stated, and no alternatives are named.

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