project_memory_log_bug

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'append ... record to Obsidian' which implies non-destructive logging but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or whether it overwrites or creates new entries.

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 is a single sentence plus a usage clause, very concise with no wasted words. However, it lacks necessary parameter details, making it less useful despite brevity.

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?

Given 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return values, or constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 9 parameters (e.g., projectPath, title, status, fix, etc.). The agent gets no guidance beyond what the schema's property names and types offer.

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 clearly states the action ('append a bug investigation or fix record to Obsidian') and the lifecycle context ('bug is identified, investigated, fixed, verified, or left blocked'). It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like project_memory_log_feature and project_memory_record_decision by focusing on bugs.

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 explicitly lists conditions for use (when a bug is identified, investigated, fixed, verified, or blocked). However, it does not mention when not to use or direct the agent to alternative siblings for non-bug tasks.

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