Append log entry

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

Annotations provide no read-only or destructive signal beyond false flags, and the description clarifies that the tool mutates log.md by appending a formatted line. It doesn't discuss failure modes or idempotency, but the append behavior and target are disclosed without contradicting 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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads the exact action and format, the second gives the usage rule. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple append operation with no output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is complete: target file, entry format, and call timing are all specified.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds the output line format ('operation | title') but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names an explicit verb ('Append'), a specific target resource (log.md at wiki root), and the exact entry format. This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like wiki_read_log and write tools like wiki_write_page.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: call after every content change (ingest, update, merge, split, delete, refactor) to keep history chronological. It doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, but for an append-only log the usage context is clear.

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