mureo_state_action_log_append

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral info: atomicity ('atomically append') and return value ('Returns the updated state document'). However, it could add more about failure modes or concurrency.

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 purpose, then usage guidance and return value. Every word adds value; no wasted text.

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 simple append tool, the description covers purpose, usage, return value, and parameter requirements. No output schema exists, but the return is described as the updated state document, which is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying required fields with format hints (ISO 8601, examples like google_ads), which is above baseline.

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 specifies the exact action ('atomically append a single action_log entry') and resource ('STATE.json'), and distinguishes from siblings like mureo_state_get and mureo_state_upsert_campaign by focusing on appending logs.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this whenever a workflow takes an action that should be evaluable later' and gives concrete examples (budget changes, campaign pauses), but does not list situations where it should not be used.

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