log_cycle

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it can reopen a period that was marked ended, it infers started_on and ended_on instead of asking, and it requires a consent/tracking check before logging. No statement contradicts the provided annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear top-line definition, a bulleted list of cases, a prerequisite warning, and an inference section. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is filler or redundant.

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 description covers edge cases, prerequisites, inference rules, and forbidden usage. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. For a tool that logs cycle data with inference and consent requirements, this is complete.

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?

While the schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds crucial semantics: started_on defaults to today for current-period statements, ended_on should be omitted unless explicitly stated, and both dates can be inferred from context. This goes well beyond the schema's basic format descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Log a period to the user's cycle log', and then enumerates the distinct real-world utterances it handles. This makes the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly separates it from siblings like list_cycle, update_cycle, and delete_cycle.

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 gives explicit applicability through concrete examples, a prerequisite check for cycle tracking, and an explicit exclusion: 'Do NOT use this tool to log future dates.' It does not explicitly route users to update_cycle for modifications, but for a logging action the guidance is strong and actionable.

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