Append an entry to the work log of this cable on its line, while you work. The next cable gets the last entry in its identity package. Only the cable that holds the lease writes it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Work log entry of this cable (up to 8000 characters). Write it while you work, not only at the end. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (read-only=false, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description discloses the lease-ownership requirement and the fact that the next cable inherits the last entry, which is real behavioral context the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations. It does not say what happens on failure or whether entries are returned, but the added value is meaningful.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence carries information (action, handover consequence, authority constraint). Slight deduction because the 'cable'/ 'identity package' phrasing is dense and could be unclear.
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 one-parameter append tool with no output schema, the description covers action, timing, downstream effect, and the lease precondition, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It is only thin on error behavior and on where the entry is visible, but those are minor for this simplicity.
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 100% and the single 'text' parameter already documents the 8000-character limit and the 'write while you work' advice. The description adds no parameter syntax or additional meaning, so the schema-only baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('work log of this cable on its line') and even explains the handover downstream effect. However, it leans on unexplained domain jargon ('cable', 'lease', 'identity package') and never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like line_send or line_release, so an agent new to the vocabulary may hesitate.
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?
It provides timing guidance ('while you work', not only at the end) and a hard precondition ('Only the cable that holds the lease writes it'). But it names no alternative tools or when-not conditions, so the agent must infer the boundary with line_send/line_attach/line_release on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.