log_append

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: path does not create a per-directory log, it only prefixes the entry in the root log, and entries are ordered newest first. It does not cover failure modes, permissions, or whether entries are durable/atomic, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the core action and target front-loaded and the path caveat and read-back pointer following immediately.

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 append tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, where it writes, and how to read it back. It stops short of describing the return value or confirmation behavior, which an agent calling it blind 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 67% and the required 'entry' parameter has no schema description at all. The description compensates for the most confusing parameter by explaining that path results in a '[<path>] ' prefix in the root log rather than a separate log, which is meaningfully more than the schema's 'Optional folder prefix'.

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 (appends) plus the exact target resource (root log.md) and its ordering convention (newest first). It also explicitly names the read counterpart, log_tail(path), so an agent can separate this write tool from the sibling that only reads.

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?

Tells the agent how to retrieve what it wrote ('read back with log_tail(path)'), which effectively routes the read case to the alternative. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g. that this is root-level only, never per-directory), but the context is clear.

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