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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the authorization model ('any shop member can add one'), the default behavior for log_date (today in the shop's time zone), and a real constraint on media_ids (photos must already be on the job). It omits whether entries are editable/immutable and any size or rate limits.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then permissions, then defaults, then attachment rules. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 four-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization, defaulting, and attachment constraints. It leaves open what the call returns and whether the entry can later be edited or removed, which an agent might want to know.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all four parameters: body is free-form worker narrative, job_id is the target job, log_date defaults to today in shop time zone, and media_ids must reference existing job photos. It does not restate the 5000-char or 50-item caps, but those are in the schema.

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 ('Write a daily log entry on a job') plus the content scope ('what happened on site that day, in the worker's own words'). This clearly separates it from logs_list, logs_remove, and documents_dailyLog without needing to name them.

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?

'Any shop member can add one' gives a permission context but not a when-to-use rule or an explicit alternative. The usage is implied by the purpose (record a site event), but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over notes_add or documents_dailyLog.

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