Log work

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

The description discloses that it appends data and feeds velocity and health metrics. Annotations show it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not explicitly destructive, which aligns with the append action. It adds context beyond annotations, though it could be more explicit about potential side effects on existing data.

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 is dense and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently conveys the purpose, but could benefit from clearer separation of details (e.g., using a second sentence).

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context (board work log, tied to ticket, feeds metrics). However, it does not explain the return value or what happens after logging, such as confirmation or log entry ID. The parameter list is not fully covered, leaving gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names several parameters: summary, tokens, additions, deletions, model, ticket. However, it misses required parameter 'project' and optional parameters 'inputTokens' and 'outputTokens'. This partial coverage adds some meaning but is incomplete.

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 work event to the board's work log' and specifies the content: summary, tokens, additions/deletions, model, tied to a ticket. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_heartbeat or record_dispatch.

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 its purpose (logging work events) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide conditions for usage. Context from siblings suggests it is the appropriate tool for logging work events, but no direct guidance is given.

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