create_log

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the write ordering (quantities first, then linked) and the rollback behavior if the log save fails, plus the write-enabled precondition. Annotations already cover the safe/non-destructive profile, so this added operational context is the right kind of value.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the non-obvious quantity workflow, then the precondition. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, with no repetition of schema content.

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 an 11-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the important non-schema behavior (ordering, rollback, write prerequisite). It is complete enough to call correctly, with only sibling-routing guidance left implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description only echoes the optional locations/categories/quantities concepts and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a log') and immediately scopes what can be attached (locations, categories, quantities). It is clearly distinct from listing/status siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the generic create_record sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the optional-field list, and the 'Requires writes to be enabled' precondition is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus create_record or set_log_status, and no stated exclusions.

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