record_objective

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

With readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful context: the write target file and, critically, that supplying assay_kind switches server-side interpretation rules (lipid-name grammar vs candidate set) for later tool outputs. It omits what happens if the file already exists or what the call returns, but the side-effect disclosure is the high-value piece.

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?

Front-loads the destination and the purpose, then layers the GATEWAY precondition and per-parameter notes in a logical order with no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information.

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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers the workflow position and the most consequential parameter (assay_kind) but leaves half the inputs unexplained. Adequate, not complete.

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 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains assay_kind's allowed values and downstream effect, sub_questions' format, and biological_context's contents, but leaves dataset, polarity, groups, comparison, and expected_biology entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and even the exact write destination (reports/<analysis_id>.objective.md), plus the framing '(gap駆動探索の前提)'. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling update_objective, so the agent cannot fully tell record- vs update- apart from text alone.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: GATEWAY 手順1, after the user confirms the objective inferred from data. However it never names the alternative update_objective or states when NOT to use this tool, leaving the sibling relationship to inference.

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