Log Restaurant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond the purpose sentence. It does not disclose that this is a write/create operation, whether it is idempotent, how an existing entry is handled if 'name'/'restaurant_id' collides, or what happens when only the three required fields are supplied.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 14-parameter mutation tool, which is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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 14-parameter write tool with zero annotations, no usage routing, and no stated side effects, one sentence is thin. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves the agent without enough to know when and how safely to call it.

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 each of the 14 parameters is already documented with examples and defaults; the baseline is 3. The description's 'dining journal or wishlist' phrasing loosely signals the visited/wishlist distinction but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond 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 gives a specific verb ('Log') and resource ('restaurant or dining experience') and even names the two destination buckets (dining journal vs. wishlist), which maps onto the status parameter. It is clear enough to distinguish from read-side siblings like search_restaurants, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over search_restaurants, get_agent_recommendation_brief, or vet_recommendation_candidate, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing recommendation. The journal-vs-wishlist phrasing implies usage but states no conditions or exclusions.

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