hero_add_logbook_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact the annotations cannot express: the write is gated behind the HERO_ALLOW_WRITES environment flag. It still says nothing about failure modes or return behavior.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, with the what and the example front-loaded before the prerequisite and discovery steps. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 an open-world mutation with a nested passthrough object and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, prerequisites and argument discovery. Only error/permission-failure behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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?

The schema 'documents' both params but only nominally: `arguments` is an open object whose real field names are unknown, and the schema offers no help. The description compensates by directing the agent to hero_schema for the exact argument names, which is the only way to fill the passthrough correctly.

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 ('Add an entry to a project's logbook in HERO') and grounds it with concrete examples ('a call note or site-visit summary'). No sibling tool in the list touches logbook entries, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Requires HERO_ALLOW_WRITES=true') and a discovery workflow: call hero_schema and inspect the add_logbook_entry mutation before passing arguments. It does not state when to prefer this over hero_graphql directly, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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