Log a generated document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It reveals that the tool reads the object's hash from storage, records data, and requires a confirmation step (without confirm:true it returns a notice). It could mention more about side effects or errors, but it's quite transparent for a logging tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and workflow. It is concise but includes necessary details like the confirmation flow and character logging requirements. Slightly dense, but every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested objects, confirmation flow), the description covers the workflow, parameter semantics, and behavioral notes. It explains the confirmation behavior and character requirements. It doesn't describe the return format, but the purpose is well-covered.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that unit is a chapter number, deliverable is a key like 'manual', and characters must include every character found anywhere in the document with details like {name, type}. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states it logs a generated document after upload, reads a hash from storage, and records the output for future consistency. It distinguishes this tool by specifying the post-upload context and the required parameters like unit, deliverable, and content details.

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 states when to use (after uploading via create_upload_url), provides a two-step confirmation flow, and explains the meaning of unit and deliverable with examples. This gives clear invocation guidance and disambiguates from other tools.

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