file_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious creation constraint (exactly one area/<name> and one kind/<name>, with the kind vocabulary enumerated), which is real added value, but says nothing about side effects, whether filing notifies anyone, or whether re-filing duplicates.

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?

Two sentences, the creation action is front-loaded, and the label rules follow immediately with no hedging or filler. Dense and well-ordered, though the parenthetical vocabulary list makes the second sentence long.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the label contract is covered well but the description never states what happens on success (e.g., a returned entry identifier) or whether any fields are validated beyond labels. 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, and it does for the hardest parameter: labels gets its required structure, the allowed kind values, and the optional filed-by/<agent> convention. title and body are left to their self-evident names, which is a minor gap only.

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?

States a specific verb ('File') and resource ('a new entry'), which is enough to distinguish it from the edit/set/get/query siblings that operate on existing entries. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say what an 'entry' is, so an agent must infer the surrounding model from the sibling names.

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 imperative 'File a new entry' implies this is the creation path versus the sibling mutation tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or prerequisite (e.g., permissions, required area taxonomy). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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