record_interaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool performs mutations (accumulate, append, bump) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or whether the operation is reversible. It provides minimal transparency beyond stating the actions.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the main purpose. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separating the two main actions) for improved readability.

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?

Adequate for a recording tool but missing explanations of return values (no output schema), error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., friend must exist). The description is not fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds overall context ('accumulate token usage', 'shared-mission outcome') but does not provide new semantic details beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 due to high coverage.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'a turn with a friend', specifying three distinct actions: accumulate token usage, append a shared-mission outcome, and bump familiarity. This differentiates it from sibling tools like save_note or set_trust.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for related tasks (e.g., save_note for notes).

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