entries_insert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses an important behavioral constraint (does not create War Rooms) and gives the HTTP method, but does not mention permissions, failure modes, or response behavior. This is a moderate transparency level for a simple insert operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. The note, endpoint, and example are each useful and not redundant, providing essential operational detail without unnecessary padding.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the key context: endpoint, prerequisite, and example usage. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the straightforward nature of an 'insert' operation, though return-value details are not described.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example showing how to pass a command as 'data', which clarifies real-world usage beyond the schema. The minor inconsistency in example casing ('Id' vs 'id') is a slight flaw.

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 clear action verb and target resource ('Add War Room entries'), and further specifies it applies to incident or alert War Rooms. This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like entries_get.

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 note clearly states a critical precondition: the War Room must already exist and the endpoint does not create one. It also implies the appropriate context (adding entries) without explicitly naming alternatives, but the distinction from retrieval tools is straightforward.

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