haops_append_memory

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

Discloses that author is auto-populated and tag restrictions exist, but does not mention idempotency, side effects, or what happens on conflict. No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden; it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second adds critical usage constraints. Every word 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?

With 6 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, the description covers tag restrictions and author but omits return value format and any edge-case behavior (e.g., duplicate appends). It is minimally adequate but incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining auto-populated author and tag-role mappings beyond the schema's enum list. The schema already documents all parameters, so baseline 3; the added context justifies a 4.

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 'Append a tagged log entry to entity agent memory' with specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like haops_read_memory or haops_consolidate_memory, but the unique behavior (append with tags) is clear.

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?

Provides explicit tag restrictions based on agent role (e.g., 'dev can use: context, decision, progress, issue; qa: review, issue; architect/admin: all tags'), which guides when to use which tags. Lacks when-not-to-use guidance but offers clear context for correct invocation.

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