defense_record_block

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint:false, which aligns with the logging nature of the tool. The description adds value by stating that marking false positives triggers auto-tuning, and it discloses a licensing requirement. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage context and structured parameter details. It is efficient but the Args section partially repeats schema information; still, it is clear and well-organized.

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 2 simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, and parameter meanings. It mentions the return type but could elaborate on error conditions or ID format, though not necessary for clarity.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. For both parameters, it provides full descriptions: defense_id is 'the defense rule that blocked the threat' and is_false_positive explains its boolean nature and default.

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 starts with 'Record that a defense blocked a threat,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like defense_stats or defense_list, which are query or management tools.

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 explains it is used to track defense performance and auto-tune rules via false positives. It also states the prerequisite of Pro tier or Novyx Cloud. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though no direct alternative exists.

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