write_journal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that entries are durable and private, mentions the default section, and states the return value as a JSON path. However, it does not explain whether entries with the same title are overwritten, how file paths are generated, or any side effects like appending rather than creating new files. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 and well-structured: a single-sentence summary upfront, a bulleted list for section options, and a final return note. There is no redundancy, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the core purpose, sections, and return value, which is adequate for a write tool with no output schema. It omits potential overwrite behavior and file naming details, but the existence of sibling read/search tools implies a structured journal system, making these omissions less critical. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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. It fully explains the 'section' parameter by detailing each enum value and the default behavior. It also suggests 'meaningful title' for the title parameter, but content is left to common sense. The compensation is partial, hence the score.

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 and resource: 'Write a durable private journal entry with a meaningful title.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings (list, read, search) by focusing on the write operation. The section list adds detail but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 thorough guidance on selecting the appropriate section based on note content, which is a key usage decision. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the verb 'write' makes the primary use case clear. It could improve by stating when to use this tool rather than read/list/search, but the context is sufficient.

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