failure_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'for future reference', which implies persistence but doesn't clarify side effects, whether it overwrites existing records, or what response to expect. For a write operation, this is a significant 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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. The phrase 'for future reference' provides a hint of purpose without extra fluff. However, it is slightly redundant with the tool name, preventing a perfect score.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how the parameters relate, the required error_pattern, or what constitutes a successful record. The description is minimal and leaves the agent with many unresolved questions.

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 100%, so all five parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Record a failure experience for future reference' clearly states the verb ('Record') and resource ('failure experience'), which aligns with the tool name 'failure_record'. It distinguishes itself from sibling search/list/stats tools by implying a create/write operation, though it doesn't explicitly exclude update/delete behavior.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like failure_update or memory_write. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or mentions of related tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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