mureo_state_action_log_append

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the operation is atomic and returns the updated document. It does not disclose error conditions, permissions, or concurrency behavior. The path parameter mentions restrictions (paths outside cwd refused), but overall more transparency would be beneficial.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the core operation and return value, followed by usage examples. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema. The description explains the return value and provides usage examples. It covers atomicity and file restrictions. Missing error handling details, but for a logging tool it is fairly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, including detailed property lists and required fields. The tool description reiterates some of this but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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: atomically append an action_log entry to STATE.json. It uses a specific verb ('append') and resource ('action_log entry to STATE.json'), and distinguishes from siblings by its focus on logging actions for later evaluation. The examples (budget changes, campaign pauses) further clarify the intended use.

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 says to use this tool 'whenever a workflow takes an action that should be evaluable later', providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is still strong and directly applicable.

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