record_analysis

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the description's 'Persist' mainly restates that in semantic terms. It adds a useful preview-before-persist workflow note, but does not disclose overwrite/duplicate behavior, preconditions, or what side effects occur beyond persisting.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key alternative. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 is complex due to the discriminated-union request, but the rich schema and output schema carry much of the burden. The description is minimally adequate at the workflow level, yet it leaves gaps around how 'curated analysis' maps to the recipe variants and how the request should be assembled.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it says nothing about the 'request' parameter, the recipe discriminator, or the seven request variants. An agent must rely entirely on the schema to determine how to construct a valid request.

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 ('Persist') and resource ('a curated analysis'), and explicitly contrasts with the read-only analyze_* siblings. This is not a tautology and clearly communicates the tool's write-oriented purpose.

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?

'Use analyze_* first for read-only preview' gives explicit, actionable guidance on when to prefer the alternative family and implies this tool is for the subsequent persistence step. No other usage ambiguity remains for the main decision point.

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