log_recovery_session

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

Beyond the annotations, it details real behavior: infer date/category/strategy_name instead of asking, omit duration_minutes for skipped sessions, include quality only when the user rates it, and map 'skipped/missed/didn't do' to skipped=true. These rules tell the agent exactly how the tool expects the call to be constructed.

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 organized into a two-sentence purpose, a compact INFER bullet list, and a short workflow callout. There is no filler, and the highest-value guidance is front-loaded.

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?

For an 8-parameter write operation, it covers all major decision points: defaults, inference rules, skipped handling, strategy linking, and the standalone fallback. Optional fields like notes are already documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values.

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 coverage is already 100%, but the description adds inference semantics that the schema cannot express: category comes from the practice name, strategy_name comes from the linked strategy or user phrasing, and duration is omitted when skipped. This materially improves an agent's ability to fill the parameters correctly.

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 concrete action and resource: 'Log a completed or skipped recovery/mindfulness session,' and lists representative practices. It also carves out 'one-off standalone sessions not linked to a recurring strategy,' which separates this tool from strategy-management siblings and gives the agent a clear scope.

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 trigger is explicit ('Use when the user says they did or skipped...') and the preferred workflow names list_recovery_strategies and a standalone fallback, so the agent knows when to invoke it. It never states a when-not or names a sibling tool as the alternative, leaving some exclusion logic implicit.

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