log_adherence

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds the behavioral trait 'append-only', which clarifies that entries cannot be modified or deleted, going slightly beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, validation rules, or failure modes, and the output schema is not described.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the append-only caveat is placed parenthetically, which is appropriate. It earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 5 parameters (2 required), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the meaning or purpose of the parameters, any required preconditions (e.g., existing plan item), or how the tool interacts with other tools like adherence_summary. While an output schema exists, the description leaves the agent guessing about parameter semantics and usage context, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 provides no information about the parameters. The schema itself is somewhat self-explanatory (plan_item_id as string, status enum), but the description fails to add any domain meaning, such as what 'perceived_effort' represents or how 'timestamp' should be formatted. It does not compensate for the lack of schema coverage at all.

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 the action ('Append an entry') and the target resource ('the adherence log'). The phrase 'append-only' distinguishes it from potential modification or deletion tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling adherence_summary, which presumably reads adherence data, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool versus reading the log.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what conditions warrant logging an adherence entry, or any prerequisites (e.g., valid plan_item_id). It also doesn't mention alternatives like adherence_summary for reading. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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