frank_append

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the hash-chaining, append-only immutability, and the return shape. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for an append ledger, the immutability warning is the most critical behavioral trait.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key constraints. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite missing app_id semantics, the description covers the essential behavior, immutability, and return value. It provides enough context for an agent to decide whether to use this tool, especially given its distinct append-only ledger nature.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains project, event_type, and content, but omits app_id entirely. This is a meaningful gap since app_id is a required parameter without any schema description.

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 tool appends an event to a shared FRANK governance ledger with hash-chaining, using specific verbs and resource names. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like frank_read and frank_verify by emphasizing the append-only, immutable nature.

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?

It provides strong guidance on when to use the tool (write settled facts, not drafts) and warns about the append-only constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for reading or verifying the ledger, though the context makes this clear.

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