record_interaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and exceeds expectations. It discloses content policy ('This tool records no content'), idempotency semantics ('The same id records once; a new id records again'), opt-in consent requirements, and environment prerequisites ('Requires SYNPAREIA_NETWORK_URL and a published identity'). It even notes the residual risk of author-chosen slugs in the broader system, showing deep transparency.

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 well-structured with bold leads, section separation, and bullet lists that make key facts scannable. However, the extended discussion about the network-level context slug allowlist and the 'earlier version of this note' is tangential to using this tool and adds verbosity without direct operational value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to use, parameter meanings, failure modes, privacy semantics, idempotency, and required environment. It preempts common mistakes (e.g., retrying on opt-in failure, assuming content can be recorded) and fully addresses the high complexity of a shared-network write 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully with detailed bullet explanations for magnitude (scale and driving weight), valence (omission semantics), shareable (two-sided consent), and event_id (retry safety). Only counterparty_did is not explicitly described, but its meaning is clear from context and the sibling tool ecosystem.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record that you dealt with another agent, and optionally how it went.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating 'This writes to the shared network, not your local journal,' identifying the unique network-facing interaction-recording scope.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use: 'Use it after a real interaction — a job done, a claim verified, a commitment kept or broken.' It also clarifies a key non-error failure mode and remedy: 'If the counterparty has not opted in, this fails and that is not an error in your request... the remedy is to ask them, not to retry.' However, it does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., remember_counterparty) for other use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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