bug_append

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the active-bug fallback for path, which is useful, but says nothing about return behavior, whether append is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., invalid section), or whether the entry is validated. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is thin.

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?

One tight sentence with a parenthetical enumeration of section values. Front-loaded with the action, no filler, every clause adds information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The description covers the optional path behavior and valid sections, but with 0% schema coverage for parameters and no annotations, it leaves gaps around the required 'entry' parameter and operational constraints. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does so only partially. It clarifies that path is optional (active bug fallback) and lists valid section values, but 'entry' is not described at all – its format, length, or content expectations are entirely absent.

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 states a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('bug note section') and enumerates the valid sections (Timeline, Hypothesis, Fix, Symptom, Root cause), which is informative. It distinguishes from siblings like bug_start and bug_close, though it doesn't explicitly say it's a bug-note-append tool versus the generic daily_append.

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 implies usage by explaining the 'uses active bug if path omitted' behavior, which tells the agent when path is optional. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must a bug be active?), and no comparison to alternatives like notes_read or capture_quick.

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