Append a Markdown entry to a task's worklog to record progress, decisions, and blockers so agents can track work history without external databases.
Append an entry to the task's worklog (Markdown). Use it for progress, decisions, blockers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | task id such as T-007 (T-7 and 7 also work) | |
| message | Yes | Markdown text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that this appends rather than replaces existing log content, and that content is Markdown, but it says nothing about whether the task must exist, error behavior, or what the call returns.
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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded before the usage hint.
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 two-parameter append tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the content format, and typical use cases. Only the return value and failure modes are unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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 100%, so both id and message are already documented, including id format variants. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource: 'Append an entry to the task's worklog.' That is clearly distinct from status-changing siblings like change_task_status, though it never explicitly contrasts with the very similar comment_task.
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?
'Use it for progress, decisions, blockers' gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the near-identical sibling comment_task, leaving the agent to guess which of the two to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.