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

The description goes beyond the annotations by revealing that entries are durable, appended, and visible to all future agents and humans. This is valuable behavioral context. It does not disclose edge behaviors like idempotency or failure semantics, but the append-only nature is the key behavioral trait and is clearly stated.

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 tight sentences deliver the core purpose, usage boundary, and why it matters. The key scoping instruction ('not routine progress updates') is placed early, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple logging tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: what to log, where it goes, who sees it, and which sibling to use instead. It does not explain the response format, but that is rarely critical for an append-style tool.

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 67%, with descriptions already covering client, detail, summary, and task_id, plus an enum for kind. The description reinforces the kind categories and adds the general 'rolling decisions log' framing, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Append a durable note to a client's rolling decisions log.' It enumerates the accepted content types (decisions, learnings, preferences, constraints) and differentiates itself from add_progress_note and implicitly from project-scoped logs like log_project_decision.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('decisions, learnings, preferences, or constraints') and when not to use it ('not routine progress updates'), naming add_progress_note as the alternative. It does not explicitly address project-level decision logging via log_project_decision, but the 'client's rolling decisions log' wording makes the client scope reasonably clear.

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