log_file_touch

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden, and it does disclose the two most consequential side effects: implicit attachment to the current in_progress node and the implicit state transition that starts a planned task. Still missing are what happens when no in_progress task exists (error vs. no-op), whether entries are appended or overwritten, and any permission/auth expectations.

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 tightly packed sentences, with the core action and the fallback/auto-start rule front-loaded and no filler. Minor cost: enumerating the action and change-kind enums verbatim duplicates what the schema already enumerates, which buys little.

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?

Ten parameters and a nested `changes` union make this a nontrivial call, but the schema documents every field at 100% and the description covers the two behaviors the schema cannot express (implicit node attachment and planned-task start). No output schema means return shape is the only omission, which is minor relative to the semantic coverage provided.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema: the schema says omitted nodeId attaches to the active in_progress task, while the description adds that supplying a planned task nodeId starts it, a state change not visible in the schema. It also frames `changes` as user-facing traceability rather than raw data.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair ('Record that a file was read/created/modified/renamed/deleted') and scopes it to file-touch logging plus symbol-level changes, which is unmistakably different from every sibling (node/mindmap CRUD, plan status, rendering). It never explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 second sentence gives real operational context: omit nodeId to attach to the in_progress task, or pass a planned task and it will be started. That's the how, not the when-to-use-this-vs-alternative. There is no guidance on when to prefer log_file_touch over update_node/update_plan_status, nor any exclusion (e.g. don't use for non-file work).

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