Append debug session note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notably reveals that the operation is non-mutating ('does not change runtime state or configuration' and 'local'), which is valuable. However, it omits details like whether an active session is required, how 'local' persists, or any side effects on session history.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and an important constraint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (4 required), enums for type and actor, a nested data object, and no output schema. The description fails to explain the meaning of the parameters, how they interact, or what the appended note looks like. It is far too minimal for the tool's complexity and leaves major gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description explains none of them. There is no mention of session_id, type, actor, summary, or data, nor their enumerations or semantics. The tool name hints at a note, but the description adds virtually no parameter-level meaning.

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 verb ('Append') and resource ('a local diagnostic note or observation'), and the qualifier 'only' distinguishes it from state-changing debug tools. This is specific enough to differentiate it from siblings like apply_config_change or set_debug_breakpoints.

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 description provides clear context that this tool is for local diagnostic notes and explicitly states it does not change runtime state or configuration, implying when to use (for logging) and when not (for mutations). However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it stops short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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