Append to a task's log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: a question closes only via `answers_entry_id` ('nothing else closes one'), closed questions stay readable through get_task, and `from_observation_id` marks an observation handled so it leaves the briefing. It omits whether entries are editable/deletable after append and any auth or rate considerations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the enum, then the headline/body constraint, then the closure rule. 'Keep the body to a screen' overlaps with the schema's own body guidance, a minor redundancy in an otherwise waste-free description.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs — entry kinds, body sizing, question closure, observation handling. The self-descriptive `model` and `author` parameters are left entirely to the schema, a small residual gap.

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 a reasonably high 71%, and the schema already explains `kind`, `body`, `answers_entry_id`, and `from_observation_id` in detail. The description reinforces the closure semantics of `answers_entry_id` but adds little new meaning, and it says nothing about `model` or `author` — the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameters is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Append one entry' — and enumerates the five entry kinds, so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with lookalike siblings such as add_context or update_task, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is one genuine conditional: 'Settling an earlier question? Pass its id as `answers_entry_id`', which tells the agent when to reach for that parameter. Beyond that, there is no guidance on when to log an entry versus using add_context or update_task, so usage is mostly implied by the kind enum.

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