amu_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that lineage comes from the executed SQL rather than user input, and that write access requires an amu_writer Postgres role with other roles receiving a hard permission error instead of a silent no-op. It stops short of describing conflict/idempotency behavior, which matters given the amu_check_conflict sibling.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the lineage rule, then the permission requirement. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and auth/lineage behavior is covered. However, for a 5-required-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves most parameters and conflict-handling behavior unexplained.

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% across 5 required parameters. The description adds real meaning for `sql` (must be the executed query, lineage is derived from it, not self-reported), but says nothing about `value`, `metric_name`, `description`, or `owner_department`, leaving four required params undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 names a specific verb (Record) and resource (a new Analytical Memory Unit), and even expands the AMU acronym. It does not explicitly contrast itself with amu_check_conflict or amu_search, but the record-vs-search/conflict distinction is inferable.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance against the siblings. The statement that lineage is extracted from the executed `sql` implies the tool should be called with the query that was actually run, which is useful implied usage but not a stated condition.

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