Log a performance to the vault

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds behavioral details: it reads a snapshot, writes a journal entry with a thumbnail attachment, and requires a vault path. It also mentions the return values (note path, thumbnail saved, counts), which provides valuable context beyond annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the key actions. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, and returns without unnecessary detail.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior, return values, and a prerequisite (vault path). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add new semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action: reading a network snapshot and writing a dated journal entry. It specifies the resource (Performances/<date>-<title>.md) and optional thumbnail. While it is specific, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are many.

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 suggests using the tool to build a diary of shows, providing a clear use case. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternative tools for similar tasks, limiting guidance on selection.

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