log_entry

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

Annotations are absent, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the most important behavioral trait: append-only, timestamped, never rewrites, and the log's role as a raw stream for distillation. This is substantial transparency for an otherwise annotation-free mutation tool.

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 punchy, front-loaded sentences: the verb+resource come first, followed by use-case context and the rewrite prohibition. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 core behavioral contract is clear, but for a 3-parameter tool the description omits the meaning of optional parameters and prerequisites like vault initialization. Given no output schema and no annotations, an agent could invoke the tool incorrectly around date/source semantics.

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 compensate. It gives the text' semantic hint ('a fact, a link...') but leaves date and source completely unexplained. An agent cannot know that a null date likely means today, or what values source accepts beyond the default 'manual'.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('the day's append-only log'), which clearly distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like read_daily_log or list_notes. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling, but the append-only log resource makes the purpose specific.

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?

Provides a strong context sentence — 'For in-flight capture: a fact, a link, a half-formed idea' — and a behavioral exclusion ('Never rewrite the log'). It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus append_to_note or capture_session, so the routing remains implied rather than fully explicit.

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