append_diary_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool appends to a diary, which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether entries are permanent, whether there are any side effects, authentication requirements, or if the operation is idempotent. The phrase 'append a new entry' gives basic information but lacks depth compared to mutating tools with clear consequences.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage timing, and a formatting guideline without redundancy.

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 simple append operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states when to call the tool and what content to include. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits any mention of return values or error handling, though these may be less critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 100%, and the schema itself provides a detailed Markdown template for the 'entry' parameter. The description adds a stylistic hint ('matching the diary style') and lists example data fields, but these are already covered by the schema. The description provides minimal additional value beyond the structured parameter definition, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: "Append a new entry to the espresso shot diary." It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_diary by indicating a write operation, and further clarifies its scope with 'after each shot'.

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 provides clear usage context: "Call this after each shot to log tasting notes, grinder setting, yield, and observations." It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to know when to invoke it. A missing explicit alternative such as 'use read_diary to view entries' prevents a 5.

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