drive_log_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions capturing data but does not disclose whether logging is append-only, whether duplicate run_ids update or error, or any permission requirements. The behavior around identity is vague.

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 efficient sentences. The first sentence covers the primary action and data captured; the second adds purpose. No filler words. Information is front-loaded.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values or update semantics. It does not mention response format or behavior when run_id is provided (create vs update). The mention of 'cross-platform identity' is unclear which parameters realize it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description paraphrases some params ('task, status, referenced/produced artifacts') but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 verb 'log' and the resource 'AgentDrive's provenance store'. It lists specific data captured (task, status, artifacts, identity) and mentions the use case (retrospective retrieval, audit), distinguishing it from sibling tools like drive_write or drive_read.

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 implies the tool is used for logging agent runs but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., drive_write for general writes). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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