Write a log entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies an append-style log entry and gives an example, but it does not explicitly describe whether entries are appended versus overwritten, what happens if log.md is missing, or what a successful call returns.

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 two short sentences with the purpose stated first, followed by usage triggers and a compact example. Every element earns its place.

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 simple four-parameter logging tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the log file, lists usage occasions, and shows an example call. A minor gap is that it does not explain append behavior or return 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 schema already explains sandbox_id, operation, title, and details. The example in the description reinforces expected values, but it adds little semantic detail beyond the structured schema.

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: 'Record what you did in log.md.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings such as wiki_read, wiki_search, and wiki_lint by making logging the explicit outcome.

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 gives concrete triggers: 'after each ingest, after answering a question, and after a lint pass.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a sibling as an alternative.

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