Append a decision

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it modifies AGENTS.md, appends under a specific section, and records decisions with WHY. However, it omits details about error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the section doesn't exist.

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 sentences that front-load the action and location. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what not to use it for, and how to record decisions.

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 50%. Description adds meaningful guidance for 'text' (one line, decision and WHY, not just what). For 'project', no additional context, but it's a straightforward identifier. The description compensates for the missing schema description on 'text'.

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 clearly states the tool appends a dated bullet under '## Decisions' in AGENTS.md. It specifies the verb (append) and resource (project's AGENTS.md), and differentiates from siblings like log_issue and append_learning.

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?

Explicitly says to call proactively after non-obvious/architectural decisions, not for bugs or trivia, and instructs to inform the user. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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