Metis — Add Journal Entry

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

The description notes auto-extraction of mood and energy, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what the return value contains (output schema exists but not discussed).

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and parameters in two lines plus an Args list.

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?

While the description covers the core function, it omits behavioral details like constraints on content length, persistence behavior, or post-storage results. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides succinct but clear explanations for both parameters (content text, optional image path), adding value beyond the schema names.

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 tool stores a journal entry with auto-extracted mood and energy, distinguishing it from sibling add_* tools like add_memory_entry or add_glossary_term.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_memory_entry or other logging tools). There is no mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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