kb_journal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the write action ('Append'), the resulting structure (domain 'journal', tags), the return value ({id, domain}), and the schema mapping requirement. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but for a simple append tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage comparison, return value, and prerequisite. No redundant or filler content exists.

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 description covers purpose, usage guidance, a key prerequisite, and the return shape. Given the tool's simplicity, lack of output schema, and moderate parameter count, it is sufficiently complete, though a mention of error behavior or role of `app_id` would make it fully comprehensive.

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 explains `tags` and `source` ('tagged journal plus any tags you pass, with optional source attribution') and implies `content` as the 'free-text journal entry'. However, `app_id` is never explained beyond its schema title, leaving a required parameter ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Append a free-text journal entry to the knowledge base.' It further clarifies the atom's domain ('journal'), default tag, and optional fields, distinguishing it from more general tools like knowledge_ingest.

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?

The description explicitly contrasts with knowledge_ingest ('Lighter than knowledge_ingest — no domain choice or sensitivity tiering'), telling the agent when to choose this tool over the alternative. It also states a prerequisite: 'Requires a confirmed knowledge schema mapping.'

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