ap_console_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that writes cannot be read back and are intended only for human visibility. It does not detail the exact visible output or whether the call returns a status, but for a simple write-only console tool, this is sufficient context.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical write-only caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema. The description fully covers purpose, behavioral constraints, and appropriate usage context. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without additional explanation.

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 the schema already documents both 'text' and 'level' including the enum values and default. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, mainly framing text as a 'line.' The baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Write a line to ArmorPaint's own console.' It also clarifies the write-only nature, which distinguishes it from any potential read/console-logging tool. This is far more informative than a generic 'Write to console'.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: 'for leaving a trail for the human.' It also states when not to use it: 'not for logging you intend to read.' It does not name alternative sibling tools like ap_show_message, but the when/when-not guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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