agentbay_record_failure

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Record', implying a write operation. It does not disclose whether records are immutable, if they can be updated, or any authorization requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. Every word contributes 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no output schema, all parameters described), the description provides the core purpose. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details that would make it fully complete, especially given the sibling context.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds context that content should describe 'what was tried, why it failed, and what to do instead', which complements the schema but does not detail individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific resource 'failed approach or lesson learned'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agentbay_knowledge_record and agentbay_agent_memory_record by focusing on failures, making purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool should be used to document failures so future agents avoid them, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like knowledge_record or agent_memory_record. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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