log_change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so "Write" is partly redundant, but the description adds a genuinely useful constraint beyond the schema: project is effectively required for every write even though the schema marks only field_name as required. It says nothing about side effects, reversibility, 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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The telegraphic "Write: requires..." fragment is slightly clipped but efficient.

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 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 38% schema coverage, the description covers only the project prerequisite. An agent still lacks guidance on the old/new value pairing, change_type enum usage, and what logging a change actually does.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate. It usefully pins down the project parameter's requirement, which the schema understates, but says nothing about the other six undocumented parameters (new_value, old_value, reason, change_type, model, component_id).

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 ("Log a change to a component") that an agent can distinguish from siblings like log_learning and log_work. It does not explicitly name those siblings or clarify the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a prerequisite ("Write: requires project=...") but no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing among the many log_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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