Add to a task's journal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that this is an append-only addition, that it refuses on closed tasks, and that it works on tasks authored by the person. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or what the response looks like, so it stops short of a 5.

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 core action and its conditions are front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence carries distinct information (disambiguation, trigger, closed-task rule). Slightly dense and oddly ordered, with the callout aside interrupting the main flow, but no filler.

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 two-parameter append tool with no output schema, the description covers the important edge cases: closed tasks, duplicates, and the callout confusion. Only permissions and return behavior are unaddressed, which is minor at this complexity.

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 both `task` and `body` are already documented, including the 'Tisty language' constraint. The description adds no syntax, format, or length guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (append to a task's journal) and immediately disambiguates from the similarly named callout case, pointing at `edit_doc` for that. An agent can tell this apart from `reword_note`, `write_doc`, or `propose` without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggers ('when something new turns up about work that already exists, instead of filing a duplicate'), an explicit exclusion (a closed task takes no note), and the alternative action for that case ('propose it anew'). It also names the sibling to use for the callout meaning.

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