Create daily log

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent, and the description adds real behavior: default arrival of 07:00, weather auto-recorded from the date/address, the notes non-empty constraint, and the visibility scope ('reaches no client or crew') that justifies running without confirmation. This is context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every sentence carries information (defaults, constraints, alternatives). It is dense and slightly run-on, packing several facts per sentence, but no line is wasteful.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers return contract ('returns it as get_daily_log shows it'), required-field constraint, defaults, side effects (system weather recording), and visibility. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema lacks: the 07:00 default for arrival_time, the notes-must-not-be-empty constraint, the headcount-per-crew-or-free-text shape of people, and that weather_notes sits beside the system-recorded weather. Only modest gaps (no format hints for delay fields) remain.

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+resource ('New daily log on a project') and enumerates the content it captures. It distinguishes itself from get_daily_log, update_daily_log, and list_daily_logs by name, so an agent can tell which daily-log tool to pick without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('check list_daily_logs first' since one project can have several logs on one date) and an explicit alternative ('update_daily_log can edit it'). Both the when and the why-not are named.

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