nzbget_write_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers only the basic action. It doesn't specify whether this is a system log, application log, user-facing log, or what happens after writing (e.g., persistence, visibility). No information about permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response behavior is included.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While severely under-specified, it achieves maximum efficiency within its limited scope.

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 write operation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the basic verb, doesn't clarify parameters, doesn't differentiate from siblings, and provides no behavioral context. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate but doesn't mention parameters at all. The schema shows two required parameters (kind with enum values, text), but the description provides no context about what these mean, what format 'text' should be, or how 'kind' affects logging behavior. Some minimal value is added by implying a log message is written, but parameter details are completely absent.

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 'Write log message' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'nzbget_write_log' with minimal elaboration. While it specifies the action ('write') and resource ('log message'), it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'nzbget_log' or provide any meaningful context about what type of logging this performs.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool named 'nzbget_log' that likely reads or displays logs, there's no indication of when to choose write_log over log or other tools. No prerequisites, constraints, or use cases are mentioned.

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