n2_work_log

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Log' implies a write, but it does not say whether entries append or replace, whether they are tied to a sessionId, whether an active session is required, or whether errors occur on unknown projects.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; slightly more framing (e.g., session relationship) would have earned the top score without adding bloat.

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?

Seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description should explain persistence semantics, required session context, and the non-file parameters. It covers only the three file arrays, so an agent cannot call this confidently in a workflow.

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?

The description maps to filesCreated/filesModified/filesDeleted and notes that each file carries a description, but says nothing about the required 'project' parameter, 'agent', 'sessionId', or 'decisions' — leaving roughly a third of the schema unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (log file changes during work) and enumerates the three tracked categories (created/modified/deleted with descriptions), so an agent can tell it is a work-logging tool rather than a session or knowledge tool.

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 never says when to call this versus n2_work_start, n2_work_end, or n2_work_sessions, nor whether an active session or claim is a prerequisite. The agent must infer timing from the sibling names alone.

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