Log Entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it usefully discloses that an omitted logged_at defaults to now. However, it says nothing about validation (must the goal exist? can amount be negative?), permissions, idempotency, or error behavior for a mutation tool.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the parameter detail following. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin on preconditions and effects. It is usable but leaves real gaps.

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 does well for logged_at, giving the format, a concrete example, and omit-default behavior, but goal_id and amount are left with no semantics beyond their obvious names.

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+resource ('Log an amount against a goal'), so an agent knows this records a progress entry rather than creating or editing a goal. It does not distinguish itself explicitly from edit_entry or delete_entry, which are the closest siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must infer that log_entry is for creating new entries while edit_entry/delete_entry handle existing ones; the description never says so.

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