log_file_change

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and it does a good job: it states the operation is a post-action log entry, defines 'significant' by counterexample, and shows the expected content shape. It doesn't discuss persistence or return values, but as a simple logging tool those are not critical to invoking it correctly.

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 compact sentences plus a single illustrative example. The action, the timing, the quality bar, and the expected payload are all present without filler, and the main instruction is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is a simple audit-logging action with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description captures the essential selection cue, the content requirements, and a concrete format example, covering everything an agent needs to log a change correctly. Minor details such as workspace resolution are already documented in the input schema.

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 example maps nicely to path, change_type, and description, and the prose tells the agent to include path, change, and why. However, the description adds no meaning for lines_added, lines_removed, or workspace_path, and schema coverage is only 67%, so the uncovered parameters still lack interpretive help.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Record a significant file change') and frames it clearly with a temporal constraint ('after the change is actually made'). The example and 'Do not log every temporary edit' guidance distinguish it from generic logging/activity-tracking siblings like log_activity, making the tool's scope immediately recognizable.

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 explicitly defines the intended trigger: significant file changes after they actually happen, and tells the agent to skip temporary edits. It doesn't name sibling tools that should be used instead for non-file events, but the positive and negative triggers are clear enough for selection among the listed siblings.

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