session-annotate

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

The description details the additive, non-destructive nature of the operation and states that it is a local write with no provider calls. This adds valuable context beyond the annotations (which already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive). It also explains error conditions and return format.

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 concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, prerequisites, and return behavior. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two required params, no output schema), the description provides complete information: it explains the action, prerequisites, side effects (additive local write), error conditions, and return format. No additional context is needed.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. As per guidelines, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not increase it.

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'), the resource ('persisted session's audit trail'), and key characteristics ('additive local write, no provider calls'). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are about analysis, consultation, or retrieval, not annotation.

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 explicitly mentions the prerequisite 'Requires sessions.persist', which provides a clear condition for when to use this tool. It also notes that an error occurs when persistence is off. However, it does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, which would elevate the score to 5.

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