record_comparison

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

The description confirms this is a write operation ('Persist'), aligning with readOnlyHint=false. It adds the qualifier 'reviewed', implying a workflow prerequisite, but does not elaborate on side effects or idempotency. Since annotations already provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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 with no waste, front-loading the action and immediately providing the alternative. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 description adequately covers tool selection and the core persistence action, relying on the schema for invocation details. The schema name 'CompareRunSetsRequest' and output schema provide additional context. However, it does not explicitly mention the two request variants or that the request should mirror compare_run_sets, leaving some gaps for a complex 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention any parameter specifics. The term 'comparison' gives a vague hint, but the agent receives no guidance on which request variant to use or how fields relate. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('comparison'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'compare_run_sets' by labeling that as 'read-only preview'. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly instructs to 'use compare_run_sets for read-only preview', providing a direct alternative and clarifying when not to use this tool. This is clear guidance on tool selection.

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