mureo_state_action_log_append

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions atomicity and return value (updated state document) but lacks details on error handling, concurrency, or prerequisites like file existence.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance and return value. Every sentence contributes meaning 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 moderate complexity (nested parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: action, usage examples, return value, and parameter explanation. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but for a focused utility tool it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the entry fields (required vs optional) and providing context for the path parameter (defaults, security constraint). This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 that the tool atomically appends an action_log entry to STATE.json, providing specific examples of when to use it (budget changes, campaign pauses, negative-keyword adds). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mureo_state_get and mureo_state_upsert_campaign.

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 the tool ('whenever a workflow takes an action that should be evaluable later') and gives concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives from the sibling list.

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