log_creator_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the append-only, single-row nature and the daily cadence, which implies no update/delete semantics. It omits auth requirements, duplicate-handling, error behavior, and what is returned after the append.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the rationale, then the cadence rule. The thesis contrast earns its place by preventing confusion with plan-creation content. Minor: it is slightly more discursive than strictly necessary.

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?

Covers purpose, precondition (open plan), cadence, and the semantic distinction from the static thesis. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent has enough to invoke correctly, though return behavior and failure modes remain unspecified.

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 is 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema with examples. The description only references the creator-mention row and the open-plan requirement, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Append one creator-mention row to the append-only Creator Activity sheet.' The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the log_creator_activity_batch sibling, and the thesis distinction clarifies what this log is not. It stops short of naming the batch sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 a clear cadence guideline ('logged at least daily while a plan is open') and scopes it to open plans, which is genuine usage context. However it never names the batch alternative (log_creator_activity_batch) or says when a single append is preferable to a batch, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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