gratitude_record

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

Annotations are all false, so they do not convey safety or side effects. The description's 'Append' indicates a write operation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false, and it adds the 'free-text' qualifier, but it does not disclose persistence, error behavior, or any side effects beyond the obvious mutation. It neither adds rich context nor contradicts the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes to clarity, and the action ('Append') is stated first. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter append tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it identifies the resource, the action, and the nature of the parameter. It omits any mention of return values or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity and absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Free-text' clarifies that the 'text' parameter is the raw content of the journal entry with no formatting constraints, adding meaning beyond the bare string type. It does not specify limits or optionality beyond the required flag, but for a single free-text parameter this is adequate.

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 ('gratitude journal entry'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like mood_record (structured mood tracking) and journal_get (retrieval). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mood_record or journal_get. The simple action is implied, but the description does not explicitly state context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings alone.

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