threat_record

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

Beyond annotations (only destructiveHint: false), the description explains the fingerprinting, deduplication, and network addition process. It provides reasonable context for a non-destructive record action.

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 concise and well-structured with sections for purpose, process, requirements, args, and returns. A few sentences could be tightened, but overall efficient.

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 single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, process, parameter content, and return type. Missing details like error handling, but sufficient for a simple 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 sole parameter 'threat_event' has 0% schema coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying expected fields (pattern_type, details, severity) and accepting both string and object types.

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 records a threat event for cross-tenant intelligence, with specific actions like fingerprinting and deduplication. It distinguishes itself from siblings like threat_match and threat_signature.

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 mentions a prerequisite (Pro tier or Novyx Cloud), but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus other threat-related sibling tools.

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