write_day_note

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

The description usefully discloses that text is appended rather than overwritten, which is important mutation behavior for a tool with no annotations. It does not clarify whether mood or rules_followed are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what the final note structure looks like.

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 efficient sentence with the key append behavior front-loaded. Nothing is redundant, though it could be slightly more organized to cover the other note fields.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and five optional parameters needs more behavioral context than this. The append behavior for free text is covered and an output schema exists, but the roles of mood and rules_followed remain 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?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It only indirectly references pre_session_plan and post_session_review, and says nothing about day defaulting to today, mood, or rules_followed.

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 and resource ('Save ... day note') and names the two main content fields, pre-session plan and post-session review. It is clear what operation is performed, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling save/log tools.

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 mention of pre-session planning and post-session review implies when the tool is useful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other save tools (e.g., save_trade_feedback or save_ai_report), and no exclusions are stated.

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