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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description's main added value is the authorization requirement ('access token that can read and change your records') and the no-fabrication rule. What it does not disclose is the result of a successful call — no id or confirmation of what was created — which matters because add_firing_rows is the natural next step.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then the field inventory, then the sibling routing, then the guardrail — a sensible ordering. It runs as one dense paragraph and the field list slightly repeats the schema, but almost every clause carries usable instruction.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, auth, and the follow-up path, but says nothing about what the call returns (e.g., a log id needed to call add_firing_rows or link_firing). That omission leaves a real gap for an agent chaining to siblings.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema (including date format, column-order rows, and empty-string convention). The description's paraphrase adds no format or syntax detail beyond that; the phrase 'as the person dictated them' reinforces intent but isn't new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Saves a new firing log ... the Firing page') and enumerates exactly which fields constitute the log (title, day, kiln, columns, rows). It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling add_firing_rows, which handles later readings, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear creation-time condition and names the alternative tool for the follow-up case ('Add later readings with add_firing_rows'). It also adds an explicit boundary: 'Save only what the person said and agreed to; never fill in an amount, temperature or analysis they did not give.'

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