draft_daily_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Save a draft daily log.' It does not explain whether this is a mutating operation, whether it can overwrite an existing draft, whether it is reversible, or what 'draft' implies for downstream workflows.

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 concise sentence with no redundant wording and is appropriately front-loaded. However, it is too terse for a tool with seven parameters and zero annotation support, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description omits semantics for most required parameters, the meaning of evidence_ids, and the behavioral implications of saving a draft. This is insufficient for safe, 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 must compensate. It clarifies that worker entries include identifier, role, and hours, but it does not explain required top-level parameters such as project_id, work_date, summary, evidence_ids, or the optional exclusions and assumptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and a distinct resource ('draft daily log'), clearly separating it from sibling drafting tools like draft_estimate and draft_change_order. It also hints at the content of the log by naming worker entries.

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 versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what the tool does, leaving selection entirely to the tool name and context signals.

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