record_insight

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only explains the layer default but omits side effects, permissions, idempotency, or response characteristics of this write operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists and sibling tools are numerous, yet the description fails to explain when to use this vs. other record tools, what happens after recording, or error handling. For a 6-parameter mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema by reiterating layer defaults. It does not clarify 'confidence' or 'intensity' semantics, nor the nuanced purpose of 'vantage' already described in 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 clearly states the verb 'Record' and resource 'insight to the chronicle', and mentions the default layer. However, it does not differentiate from sibling record_* tools (e.g., record_breakthrough, record_learning), limiting clarity of when to use this specific tool.

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 implied guidance on using the 'layer' parameter (defaults to hypothesis, use ground_truth for verifiable facts), but lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context on prerequisites.

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