record_asset_use

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'records' but does not disclose whether the operation appends, overwrites, or requires specific permissions, nor does it mention any side effects or idempotence. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and purpose. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification, which is a completeness concern rather than a structure issue.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema (which may cover return values), the description does not explain the required input parameters or provide guidance on valid invocation (e.g., the meaning of source='manual', when to supply query_id, or how context is used). For an agent to correctly call this tool, it would need to infer parameter semantics from the schema alone, which 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?

The schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on any of the parameters (project_id, asset_id, source, context, query_id). The phrase 'asset adoption history' only vaguely hints at asset_id and project_id but provides no concrete semantics, typical values, or relationships between parameters. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 action ('records') and the resource ('asset adoption history'), using the specific Korean verb '기록한다'. It also notes the tool is a core input for consistency weighting, which distinguishes its purpose from read-only sibling tools like get_asset and list_assets. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with other write tools like set_project_pin, though the distinct resource type provides differentiation.

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 the tool is a 'core input for consistency weighting', which implies it should be used when an asset is adopted. This gives contextual purpose but does not explicitly state when to use versus when not to use, nor does it name any alternatives or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool's role.

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