amp_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by explaining that 'detail' is stored in a sidecar and loaded on demand without bloating the always-on memory index. However, it does not state whether entries are immutable, whether writes require confirmation, or what the response looks like.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by required/optional parameters and then the most important behavioral nuance about 'detail', in a logical order.

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 six-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core logging behavior and the sidecar storage model. It remains incomplete regarding the 'type' enum semantics, the meaning of 'file' and 'line', and any return or confirmation behavior.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters at a high level and gives strong semantics for 'msg' (one sentence) and 'detail' (rich multi-paragraph body stored in sidecar), but it does not explain the meaning of 'file', 'line', 'tags', or the 'type' enum values.

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 and resource: 'log a new entry'. This clearly identifies a write/logging operation, distinguishing it implicitly from read/search siblings like amp_read and amp_search. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from write-adjacent siblings such as amp_bookmark or amp_handoff.

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?

Usage is implied by 'log a new entry' and the required/optional parameter breakdown. The description adds useful guidance on when to use 'detail' versus 'msg', but offers no explicit when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.

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