kintsugi_record_failure

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that state is written to `.kintsugi/scars.json`, which is useful, but says nothing about whether writes append or overwrite, whether duplicates are deduplicated, what 'self-verified' mechanically means, failure modes, or permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and artifact up front and no filler. It is efficient, but its brevity comes partly from leaning on unexplained domain vocabulary rather than from tight editing.

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 a mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, the definition is under-specified. An agent knows roughly what happens but not the required input combinations, the verification step, or the result; the persistence clause is the only behavioral detail present.

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?

Five parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It weakly implies that raw_trace and error_summary feed the compiled record, but gives no meaning for fixed_snippet vs offending_snippet, no indication that only the two required params are truly needed, and no note on the language default.

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 names a specific action chain (compile a failure into a record and persist it), and the destination file `.kintsugi/scars.json` anchors it. But 'Golden Scar' is undefined jargon, so an agent cannot be sure whether the artifact is a test case, a patch record, or a knowledge entry; it also never distinguishes itself from siblings like kintsugi_list_scars or kintsugi_scan_code.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this rather than kintsugi_scan_code, kintsugi_list_scars, or kintsugi_compile_skills, and no stated preconditions (e.g., must a failure already have been scanned or listed?). The agent must infer the trigger condition from the name alone.

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