record_fact

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses auto-creation of entities and storage requirement, but does not mention potential side effects, return value, or error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 core function. Could be slightly more detailed on parameters without becoming verbose. Still efficient for its purpose.

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?

The tool has an output schema (unknown content) but description does not mention output. With 5 parameters, none documented in schema, the description covers the main action but lacks parameter guidance. Might be sufficient for simple use but not fully 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 coverage is 0%. The description explains the main triple (subject, predicate, object) in context, but does not describe the optional 'source' and 'confidence' parameters beyond their names and types. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 tool persists a typed-edge fact (subject, predicate, object) into a cognitive graph. It specifies auto-creation of entities, distinguishing it from recall or checking tools among siblings.

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 mentions prerequisites: signed-in account with connected storage, and references connect_byos_storage. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like recall_decisions.

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