record

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavior: the entry is newest first, the log.md is created if absent, and the entry must link the relevant concept; it does not cover permissions or return behavior.

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 front-loads the action and is dense with useful instructions rather than filler. It is somewhat hard to parse due to nested parentheticals and specialized notation, but every sentence contributes operational detail.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description gives enough information to call it correctly: scope, file creation, entry format, kind conventions, and linking behavior. It leaves return values and permission requirements 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `kind` conventions, the `note` format, and directory scoping, but the exact semantics of the `bundle` parameter and the interaction between `bundle` and `dir` remain underspecified.

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 states a specific verb and concrete artifact: writing a §9 entry in log.md under today's date. It also distinguishes the tool from the `log` sibling by explaining that linked concepts are written so `log` can find them.

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 gives clear usage context: record entries go under today's date, use the bundle root or a directory scope, and link the concept. It also names conventional kinds (Update, Creation, Deprecation), though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives beyond `log`.

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