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

Annotations already carry the mutation and non-idempotency signals, so the description's job is lighter. It adds context that this records a recommendation rather than a definitive change and notes the G2 analysis purpose, but says nothing about repeated logging effects or return behavior.

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 one tight sentence with no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. The parenthetical G2 is opaque but does not add bloat.

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 six-parameter write tool with four required fields and no schema descriptions, this single sentence is too sparse. The purpose is clear, but the agent still lacks guidance on how to fill parameters, especially cited_rules and based_on_shot, and when this tool should be preferred over 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 0%, and the description only hints at a 'dialing change,' which loosely covers lever and direction. It does not explain confidence, cited_rules, or based_on_shot, and does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb—log—and a distinct object, a recommended dialing change, which separates it from sibling log tools like log_shot and log_maintenance. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of full 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 gives a purpose ('to allow contradiction/oscillation checking') but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not point to any alternative tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when logging is appropriate.

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