Log History Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important mutation behavior: confirmation is required, reported days are not rewritten, a limited estimated_minutes exception exists, and sensitive data/code must never be saved. It does not cover return behavior, error handling, auth, or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by confirmation requirements, overwrite rules, the estimated_minutes exception, the log_update exclusion, and the safety rule. It is dense but every clause adds routing, safety, or format value.

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 complex nested days array with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the key usage and mutation constraints an agent needs to call it correctly. It remains slightly incomplete because it does not describe the response or failure 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-field constraints beyond the schema: a reported day without time may receive only date plus estimated_minutes, and today is rejected. It also clarifies that the day entries map to one update per past day.

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: saves the rebuilt history of a project, one update per past day. It also distinguishes the tool from log_update by stating that today is not accepted here and should use log_update instead.

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?

Explicitly says to call it ONLY after the person has seen the draft and confirmed it, and points to reported_days and next_steps. It also states when-not conditions: days already reported are not rewritten, except for the estimated_minutes-only case, and today must use log_update.

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