Log work

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

Annotations already indicate it is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds that it 'feeds velocity and health', which is a behavioral side effect not captured in annotations. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or idempotency beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core action and key parts, and the second sentence adds important system context. Fully front-loaded and efficient.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description leaves gaps. It does not explain the project parameter, input/output token roles, or what response to expect. The claim 'tied to a ticket' is vague and may mislead about the ticket field's optionality.

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?

Description mentions 'summary plus optional tokens, additions/deletions, and model, tied to a ticket', which provides context for some parameters. However, with 0% schema description coverage, many parameters (project, inputTokens, outputTokens) are not explained, and types/constraints are absent.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Append a work event' and the resource 'board's work log', and specifies optional fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like log_bug or plan_work, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., log_bug, plan_work). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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