record_analysis

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and idempotent=false, and the description's 'Persist' is consistent with a write operation. It adds the workflow suggestion but does not disclose side effects such as whether the analysis can be overwritten, whether it requires an existing analysis from an analyze_* tool, or any other behavioral nuances beyond persistence.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Every word contributes to the purpose and usage guidance, making it highly concise and well-structured, though it sacrifices depth.

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?

Despite having a complex request schema with seven recipe variants, the description offers only a high-level purpose and a single usage pointer. It does not explain how to choose a recipe, what input_id refers to, or any relationship to specific analyze_* tools. The existence of an output schema mitigates return-value explanation, but the overall guidance is inadequate for correct invocation.

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%, and the description provides no parameter details. It does not mention the single 'request' parameter, the discriminator 'recipe', the various recipe values (memory, scaling, failures, etc.), or other fields like input_id and limit. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the raw schema already shows, which is insufficient for such a complex nested 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Persist a curated analysis') and explicitly contrasts with 'analyze_* first for read-only preview', distinguishing it from the read-only analysis siblings. However, it doesn't specify the analysis recipe types or exactly which record entity is created, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's full scope.

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' provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the analyze_* alternatives, establishing a clear workflow: preview with analyze_*, then persist with record_analysis. However, it does not mention other relevant record tools (e.g., record_comparison, record_finding) or explain the recipe selection criteria.

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