append_modified_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a write operation (appends/updates), merges descriptions for previously modified files, and serves audit/compliance purposes. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or rate limits, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, guidelines) and front-loaded key information. However, the 'File modification tracking purposes' bullet list is somewhat redundant with earlier content, slightly reducing efficiency without adding critical new insights.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and input semantics. It lacks details on return values or error cases, but given the context (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage), it provides sufficient guidance for effective use, though not fully exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of 'filesChanged' (e.g., mapping file paths to modification descriptions) and providing detailed guidelines for file paths and descriptions, enhancing understanding of how to structure input data effectively.

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's purpose: 'Appends modified files information to a trellis issue in the task trellis system.' It specifies the action (append), resource (modified files information), and target (trellis issue), distinguishing it from siblings like 'append_issue_log' (general logs) or 'update_issue' (general updates).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to record files that have been modified during task execution, along with descriptions of the modifications made.' It provides clear context (task execution) and purpose (tracking changes), differentiating it from alternatives like 'append_issue_log' for general logs or 'update_issue' for broader updates.

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