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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing downstream effects: entries appear on the person's progress page and 'mttr reads these to get better,' plus a data-hygiene constraint ('Never send secrets or a site's private data'). It doesn't discuss idempotency or update behavior, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and packs the behavioral notes into a short closing sentence. There is mild list-like enumeration that duplicates the schema, but overall it is tight and earns most of its words.

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 7-parameter, fully documented write tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, side effects, and a data-safety warning. Missing only sibling routing and any note on how repeated logs are handled.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters. The description restates the field categories (planned/changed/checked/stuck, files, rules) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Tells mttr what you did on a site') plus the timing ('after each step') and the categories of content it records. An agent can tell this is a work-journal tool, though it never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g., mttr_changes or mttr_plan) that might look similar.

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?

'after each step' gives a clear timing cue, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives among the many similarly named siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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