log_work

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

While annotations are absent, the description transparently communicates the tool's deprecated status and that it will be removed. It does not detail behavioral traits like side effects, but for a deprecated tool, the clear warning and backwards-compatibility note are sufficient.

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?

The description is concise with just three short sentences. It is front-loaded with the deprecation warning and clear instructions, making it easy to parse.

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 deprecated tool, the description covers everything needed: it states deprecation, provides examples of trivial changes, instructs to not use it, and mentions backwards compatibility and future removal. No output schema exists, but the explanation is self-contained.

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 description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool is deprecated for logging work in an intent workflow, and it clearly defines its purpose by indicating what trivial changes should do instead. The 'DEPRECATED' label and the instruction to skip the intent workflow make the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Do not call this tool.' It explains when not to use it—for trivial changes—and offers an alternative workflow (make and commit without intent). This is exceptionally clear.

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