Record advisor instruction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Persist' implies a write operation, and 'must appear in later reports' hints at effect, but there is no mention of side effects, idempotency, permissions, overwrite behavior, or what happens after persistence.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The later sentence about priority is mostly redundant with the schema enum, but it is brief and does not significantly hurt clarity. Overall it is 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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain 'instruction' or 'source_note', does not describe persistence semantics, and does not differentiate from sibling record_* tools. An output schema exists, but input behavior and selection context are still incomplete.

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. It mentions task, priority, deadline, constraints, and follow-up as content of an advisor requirement, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify the key 'instruction' parameter or 'source_note', and the priority enumeration merely duplicates the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('structured advisor requirement'), and clearly scopes the content to tasks, priority, deadlines, constraints, and follow-ups that must appear in later reports. It distinguishes this tool from sibling record_* tools by tying it to the ResearchTwin Agent's interpretation of an advisor message.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: after the ResearchTwin Agent has interpreted an advisor message, and for requirements that must appear in later reports. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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