Create Log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether authentication is required, whether logs are retained/immutable, or what happens if errorCode is omitted for an ERROR-level entry. Only the mutation intent is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering the resource and the salient fields, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it could have spent a clause on routing or auth.

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 and no output schema, the description omits the behavioral context an agent needs: auth requirements, success/return behavior, and the relationship between type=ERROR and errorCode. Parameters are covered by the schema, but the operation's semantics are thin.

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%, so the enum values, UUID format, and max lengths are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the same fields and adds no format or coupling constraints, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Creates) and resource (user log entry on horizOn) and enumerates the key fields. It is clearly distinguishable from unrelated siblings like horizon_submit_score, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearby horizon_create_crash_report.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this log tool versus siblings such as horizon_create_crash_report or horizon_submit_feedback, and no note on prerequisites (e.g., an authenticated userId). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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