agent_append_task_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the write is an append (not an overwrite) and that entries are timestamped, plus the active-task precondition. It omits what happens on failure, whether the memory file is created if absent, and any permission requirements, so it is not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the precondition. No filler and nothing wasted.

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 simple append tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and precondition but leaves failure behavior, return value, and the undocumented agent_id parameter unaddressed. Adequate but with visible 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 only 67% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all. The task_id and entry fields are documented in the schema, but agent_id has no description anywhere, and the description never explains how the entry text is scoped or formatted.

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 (append) and resource (timestamped state entry in the active working-memory file), which clearly separates it from siblings like append_repo_progress or write_repo_task_log. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 precondition 'Requires an active task' gives a usable trigger condition, which is more than nothing. However, it never says when to prefer this over sibling state tools (agent_verify_state, agent_repair_state, agent_trace) or what to do when no task is active.

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