Log Hourly Output

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that the operation is a write and that human approval is required when counts deviate from the normal rate, which is important behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the key approval caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 straightforward three-parameter worker-output logging tool, the description covers the core purpose, the write side effect, and an approval gate. It does not define 'far from normal rate,' but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0%, and the description does not explain worker_id, parts_made, or rejected_parts individually. The phrase 'reported count' only vaguely maps to the integer parameters and leaves ambiguity about how parts_made and rejected_parts relate.

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 a specific action, 'Record this hour's output for a worker,' which precisely identifies what the tool does and the resource it acts on. It also adds a distinguishing detail about human approval for unusual counts.

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 usage context is clear: call this tool when recording a worker's hourly output. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names are distinct enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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