add_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately describes a write operation and clarifies the agent's role. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but the operation is straightforward with no contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by examples and role clarification. No wasted 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and the listed siblings, the description covers purpose, usage, and role adequately. It could mention the return value or success indication, but it's not required for an add operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the user never types and the agent provides the text in first person, enhancing the 'text' parameter's semantics. Other parameters aren't elaborated, but that's acceptable given schema detail.

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 clearly states the tool records a text moment in the user's diary, using the verb 'record' and specifying the resource as 'text moment'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on text and explicitly noting the agent keeps the diary for the user.

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?

The description says to capture 'whenever they share something worth remembering', providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings like add_photo or add_voice_note, leaving some ambiguity.

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