Add Changelog Entry (v3)

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

Annotations already indicate a non-idempotent write operation, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'add'. It does not mention auth requirements, whether the changelog replaces or appends to an existing version entry, or the effect of repeated calls.

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, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Both sentences carry information and the structure is scannable.

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 three-string mutation tool with annotations present, the description is minimally viable: the action, target, and one critical parameter source are stated. However, missing version/changelog semantics and duplicate/append behavior leave gaps that could cause incorrect invocation.

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 for the three string parameters is 0%, and the description only explains how to obtain mod_uid. It leaves version and changelog formats unspecified, so an agent cannot tell what values are valid beyond non-empty strings.

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 action and object ('Add changelog text for a version of a mod'), which clearly differentiates from read-only siblings like get_changelogs. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 sentence 'mod_uid from get_upload_targets' gives a concrete prerequisite for obtaining a required parameter, implying a workflow. It does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or fallback conditions.

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