write_changelog_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses side effects (creates file, indexes into vector store, pushes to git), idempotency (overwrites on repeated call), validation (error if no content fields), and return value. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 structured with a clear purpose sentence, then side effects, then validation rule, then a bullet list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the most important information and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, side effects, error conditions, return values), the description covers all essential aspects. It explains what the tool does, its side effects, overwrite behavior, validation, and return format. The existence of an output schema is complemented by the description's return summary.

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%, but the description provides detailed parameter explanations including example formats (e.g., version '2.1.0' or 'v3.9.35', release_date ISO string). It also clarifies the optional nature of content fields and the required fields. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Create a changelog entry for a release, index it, and auto-push to git.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_api_doc or write_bugfix_summary. The side effects and overwrite behavior further clarify its unique purpose.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use for release notes and version history' and provides a crucial constraint: 'At least one of the content fields (added, changed, fixed, breaking) must be non-empty.' It also alerts that calling twice overwrites. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool and what conditions must be met.

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