chatlog_write

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

Discloses that writes are async-queued and returns the row id immediately, but lacks further behavioral details (e.g., error handling, idempotency, rate limits). With no annotations, the description carries the burden but is only partially 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No wasted words; every sentence adds 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?

Given 16 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe key parameters like role, content, or optional fields, and provides minimal return value information beyond 'row id'.

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 add meaning. It only names required provenance fields (host_agent, provider, model_id, conversation_id) but does not explain other required or optional parameters, leaving many parameters undefined.

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 action ('append') and resource ('chat log DB'), with a specific verb-object pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chatlog_search and chatlog_status by being a write operation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for use.

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