Create or update a log

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses crucial behavioral traits: omitted fields retain current values, unspecified shelves are preserved, and passing playthrough_id edits rather than creates. This directly explains partial-update semantics and the create/update switch, which are important for a write tool and are not visible in the annotations alone.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently conveys scope, partial-update behavior, shelf preservation, and the edit path without redundancy.

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 13-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, update mode, and preservation semantics well. It does not explain the return value or error conditions, but the essential decisions for an agent—what to call, what parameters mean at a high level, and how to avoid overwriting—are present.

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 62%, and the description adds meaningful semantics by grouping parameters ('rating, review text, completion status, play dates and playtime') and explaining that omitted fields keep current values. However, it does not explicitly describe all undocumented parameters such as is_replay, is_mastered, or review_has_spoilers, relying on the schema for those details.

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 'Write a full log for a game' and enumerates the exact contents (rating, review text, completion status, play dates, playtime), which is a specific verb+resource description. It also explicitly covers the update mode with playthrough_id, distinguishing this full-log tool from siblings like rate_game, log_play_session, or save_review_draft.

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 gives clear internal guidance for create versus update ('Pass playthrough_id to edit an existing log instead of adding one'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as log_play_session or rate_game. The intended use is implied by the phrase 'full log,' but exclusions and alternatives are not named.

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