save_daily_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it flags the write action, discloses append-vs-overwrite behavior, and names the return value (full saved daily journal note). It doesn't cover permissions or overwrite data-loss specifics, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded WRITE ACTION tag and a compact purpose sentence, followed by useful examples. The example block is somewhat long but each line demonstrates a distinct invocation pattern, so it earns its space.

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 an 8-param write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, write nature, append behavior, and return value. It lacks permission/auth notes and conflict handling with existing notes, but is otherwise sufficient.

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%, so all 8 params including append default and date format are already documented. The description adds only implicit guidance (append semantics, rating examples) beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (save/append) and resource (daily journal review) with explicit scope fields (morning prep, session notes, psychology, lessons, discipline rating). The [WRITE ACTION] tag and sibling get_daily_notes make read/write distinction immediate.

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?

Example questions demonstrate when to invoke, including the append/date cases, and the WRITE tag contrasts with the read sibling get_daily_notes. No explicit when-not-to-use or mention of nearby create/save alternatives, but context is clear.

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