aci_post_work

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden—and it does well by disclosing that the log is shared, visible to the user and other AI agents, and that every ACI agent reads and writes the same log. It doesn't cover auth, retention, or error behavior, but the core write/visibility semantics are transparent.

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 tight sentences: first states the action, second gives the usage context, third clarifies shared visibility. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 write-only logging tool, the description covers purpose, trigger condition, content examples, and visibility. It omits response/error behavior, but that is not essential for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, especially with fully documented parameters.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already defines 'note', 'agent', and 'project' meaningfully. The description reinforces what belongs in 'note' (decisions, findings, completed steps) but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and a clear resource ('shared work log' / 'ACI commons'), and states the outcome: other AIs and the user can see it. This distinguishes it from the memory/skill-oriented sibling tools by anchoring it to shared project work logging.

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 says when to use it: 'when collaborating with other agents on the same project,' and gives examples of what to log (decisions, findings, completed steps). It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the collaboration context is clear enough for selection.

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