Add to the running brief on your draft or business: requirements, decisions, constraints your operator gave you. Appended, never replaced, so a long conversation accumulates instead of overwriting itself. Your operator reads this as prose.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | What to add. Write it for your operator to read. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavior: 'Appended, never replaced' and 'accumulates instead of overwriting itself.' This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), which do not indicate append semantics. It also adds the stylistic requirement that the text is read as prose. This is valuable behavioral context not present in the structured fields.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and supported content; the second explains the append behavior and intended audience. All key information is front-loaded, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines what to add, how it behaves (appending), and for whom it is intended. It could mention whether the brief is per-draft or per-business, but the phrase 'your draft or business' implies this. The tool is simple enough that the description suffices.
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 input schema already describes the 'text' property fairly well (100% coverage). The description adds a slight nuance: 'Write it for your operator to read' suggests a style, but it does not add substantive meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Add to the running brief'), identifies the resource ('your draft or business'), and lists the content types ('requirements, decisions, constraints'). It also notes the intended reader ('your operator'), which clarifies the tool's role. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like business_log or business_file_put.
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 explains when to use the tool (when operator provides requirements/decisions/constraints) and signals that it is for accumulating notes over a conversation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent. A brief note about using business_log for time-stamped events might have pushed it to a 5.
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.