Log a performance to the vault

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

The description discloses that the tool both reads and writes, specifies the file naming convention and location, notes the optional thumbnail binary attachment, and mentions the prerequisite TDMCP_VAULT_PATH. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by explaining the side effects and external dependency, which is valuable context for an agent.

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 three sentences: the first clearly explains the action, the second gives the use case, and the third covers return values and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place, the key verb 'READ'/'WRITE' is front-loaded, and there is no redundant fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states return values (note path, thumbnail saved, node/issue counts). It also covers prerequisites (vault path) and the core workflow, making it sufficiently complete for a write tool with optional parameters. It doesn't detail error handling or directory creation, but those are minor gaps given the schema and annotations.

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%, with each of the 6 parameters having a description. The tool description adds a bit of semantic context (e.g., 'preview image of an output TOP' for output_path, 'node/connection counts' for comp_path), but most parameter meaning is conveyed by the schema. The description doesn't need to compensate extra, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'WRITE a dated journal entry to Performances/<date>-<title>.md' and 'READ a snapshot of a TD network'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_td_performance or snapshot_td_graph by emphasizing the journal-writing purpose, making it unmistakably a logging/writing tool.

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 says 'Use this to build a diary of your shows over time', giving a clear context and when to invoke. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is specific enough to avoid ambiguity. A slight deduction for not mentioning sibling tools like get_td_performance as a read-only alternative.

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