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 carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: atomicity, single-entry limitation, and the return of the updated state document. It does not detail failure modes or permissions, but for a logging tool this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

The tool has a complex nested parameter schema, but the schema covers all parameter meanings. The description clearly states the return value ('Returns the updated state document') and when to use it. While it doesn't cover error conditions, the overall context is strong enough for an agent to operate correctly.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'single action_log entry', which is marginally useful but not necessary. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's richness.

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 states a specific verb ('append') and resource ('a single action_log entry to STATE.json'), with concrete use cases ('budget changes, campaign pauses, negative-keyword adds'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling state tools by focusing on the action log append operation.

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 'Use this whenever a workflow takes an action that should be evaluable later' and gives examples, providing clear usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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