log-param

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and openWorldHint=true (potential side effects). The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether logging overwrites existing parameters, rate limits, or permissions required. It relies entirely on annotations, which are insufficient for full transparency.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place with no extraneous information.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and a brief description, the tool lacks completeness. It does not explain the meaning of runId, how the parameter is stored, or what happens on success/failure. A new user would need additional context to use it correctly.

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 67% (key and value have descriptions, runId does not). The tool description does not provide any additional clarification for runId or other parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage.

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 the action (log), object (parameter), and target (run). It is distinct from sibling tools like log-metric, log-batch, etc., which log different types of data. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 usage for logging a single parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like log-batch for multiple parameters, or log-logged-model-params for model-specific parameters. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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