audit_logs_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that entries are added and notes an API version; it does not mention permissions, validation rules, response behavior, idempotency, or any side effects beyond mutation.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes a relevant version constraint without waste.

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?

The tool accepts a nested entries array with multiple undocumented fields, has no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too minimal for an agent to construct a valid request or understand the expected entry structure, so the definition is incomplete.

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%, yet the description provides no parameter-level meaning. The entries array and fields like comment, message, and detailMessage are left unexplained, so an agent cannot determine what content is expected or how these fields differ.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('audit log entries'), and adds useful qualification ('one or more', 'API v24.9+'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling audit_logs_search, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool is for writing audit log entries, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives such as audit_logs_search. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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