mindbase_contribute

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

The description explicitly states side effects: writing append-only to sources/contributors/<user>/<YYYY-MM-DD>.md and adding a log entry, plus optional routing behavior for concepts. This is valuable given no annotations were provided. It does not cover return values, errors, or permissions, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 key action and target, and then covers route-mode semantics. There is no filler, credential repetition of schema information, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the destination, the append-only behavior, the log side effect, and route-mode meanings. It does not describe return values or error conditions, and the phrase 'current project' could be more precise when projectId is optional, but the essential call context is present.

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%, giving baseline 3. The description adds real value for the mode parameter by explaining the meaning of each mode, which the schema only lists as a bare string. The other parameters are already described well enough in the 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 begins with a clear active verb 'Append' and a specific resource: a contributor entry in the current project, with a concrete file path. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as mindbase_append_log or quick_capture, so the 'vs siblings' aspect is not fully addressed.

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 explains the internal route modes (auto, daily, concept, daily+concept) but gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. With many sibling save/append tools present, an agent has no explicit selection context.

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