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

The description adds real behavior beyond the annotations: append-only with no edit and no delete, a write that is verified before VERIFIED is returned, and that the answer marks the lines. One flaw: it says 'All four fields are required' while the schema actually requires five, a small inconsistency that could cause a failed call.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then the behavioral rules and sizing constraints follow in order of consequence. Dense but every sentence carries a distinct constraint; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 5-parameter write with no output schema, it covers the essentials: append-only semantics, verification before return, and the shape of the returned answer. The 'four fields' miscount against five required parameters is the one gap that could affect a call.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds per-field sizing guidance (~80 words total, one or two sentences per field) and the pointer convention when detail lives in a dated note. That is meaning beyond the schema, though it does not disambiguate individual fields.

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 names a specific verb (append one entry) and a specific resource (this home's DEFINITIONS list) with the narrowing qualifier 'a word the owner uses in a fixed way', which cleanly separates it from capture_decision, capture_correction and capture_rejection. An agent can route to this tool without opening the 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?

It defines the qualifying subject matter ('a word the owner uses in a fixed way') and gives content-shaping rules (one or two sentences per field, ~80 words, detail belongs in the dated note with a pointer). It never names a sibling or an explicit when-not condition, so the agent must infer that decisions/corrections belong elsewhere.

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