project_log

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the append-style framing ('write a line') and the deduplication purpose, but does not disclose persistence behavior, whether entries can be edited or removed, or any permissions requirements.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the behavioral nudge ('Log negative results') placed last. No filler, though the phrasing is informal and omits any structural hints about required 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the scope parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the tool's relationship to other project_* tools is unstated, leaving a mutation tool with meaningful gaps.

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 75%, and the schema already documents action, result, and project in useful detail. The description reinforces the 'negative result counts' semantics for the result field but never mentions the undocumented scope parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 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+resource: 'Write a line in the project's research log', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like project_view, project_save, and project_transfer. The added rationale ('so nobody searches the same place twice') clarifies intent but does not explicitly name a sibling to prefer instead.

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 instruction 'Log negative results' is genuine when-to-use guidance that most agents would otherwise miss. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to project_save/project_view for the same project data, leaving the boundary between logging and saving to inference.

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