append_retro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals an additive write but omits the consequential noCarryOver behavior that discards prior weak topics/notes, says nothing about whether a retro is created when absent, and gives no permission or rate-limit context.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the verb and target resource are front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is thin. Key behaviors an agent needs before calling it — the destructive noCarryOver flag, campaign/slug requirements, and whether it creates or only appends — are absent.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters including their types and meanings. The description surfaces only two of them (weak topics, notes) and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 ('retro') plus the content being added (weak topics and notes). It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like read_retro or aggregate_retros, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to an alternative tool. The word 'existing' faintly implies a retro must already exist, but nothing tells the agent when appending is preferable to read_retro or aggregate_retros.

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