add_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the operation is 'Append-Only' (non-destructive) and includes a backup, which provides key behavioral context for safety. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or reversibility, but for a simple append tool this is sufficient.

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 that front-loads the core action and key behavioral traits (append-only, backup). No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and safety (append-only, backup) but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success message, entry ID) or how 'backup' works. It is adequate for a straightforward add operation but leaves some context unclear.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline is 3. The description's 'Append-Only' context implicitly informs the action but does not elaborate on individual parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fügt...hinzu') and clearly states the resource ('einen neuen Eintrag zum Changelog'). The mention of 'Append-Only mit Backup' distinguishes it from siblings like get_entry or preview_entry, which serve different purposes.

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 tells what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as preview_entry (which presumably adds a pending entry) or other sibling tools. Implied usage is clear but lacks explicit context for selection.

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