Post project update

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

Beyond the annotations (which are neutral), the description discloses that the update is surfaced on get_metrics and get_health, that a staleness hint appears when older than 7 days, and that voiceLint scoring (when enabled) attaches a 'voice' result as warn-only. These are non-obvious side effects that add value.

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?

Four sentences, each purposeful. First sentence states the core action. Second lists parameters. Third explains downstream effects. Fourth details optional behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool purpose, parameters, behavior, and integration points. It could mention prerequisites (project existence) or error cases, but for a simple append tool, it is sufficiently complete given the lack of output schema.

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?

The input schema provides enum values for 'health' and a description for 'narrative', but no description for 'project'. The description reinforces the health enum values and clarifies narrative as free-text, but does not explain the project parameter format or constraints. With 33% schema description coverage, the description adds some value but does not fully compensate.

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 specifies the action: 'append a dated narrative status update to the project's updates.md pad'. It distinguishes itself from heavier sprint close-out reports and references sibling tools like get_metrics and get_health for how the update is surfaced. The verb 'append' and resource 'updates.md pad' are specific.

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 states when to use this tool ('a lightweight health check-in that lives between the heavier sprint close-out reports'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the unique purpose is well-defined.

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