record_template_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states that calling this tool increments the usage count and refreshes the last-used timestamp, which is essential behavioral information for a mutating tool.

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 sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior and side effect; the second provides the invocation context and business rationale. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and why it matters. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. It could mention error cases or idempotency, but these are not critical for basic 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?

The schema has only one required parameter, template_id, with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does mention '某模板' (a template), which indirectly ties to the parameter, but it does not explain the parameter's source or constraints. Given the self-explanatory parameter name, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 action: recording a template usage by incrementing the usage count and refreshing the last-used timestamp. This specific behavior distinguishes it from sibling CRUD/search tools like get_sql_template or update_sql_template.

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 says to call this tool after a skill-reuse template generates final SQL, giving a clear invocation context. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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