nexo_lifecycle_write_fallback_diary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it writes emergency evidence, but does not discuss any side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or what constitutes 'emergency.' The description lacks depth for a write tool.

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 front-loads the verb and resource, with no extraneous words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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 the tool is a fallback write in a lifecycle context with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits important context like the relationship with other lifecycle tools, what 'emergency' entails, and any data constraints.

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 has 3 parameters (event_id required, reason with default, source with default) but 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameter, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 tool writes emergency session_diary evidence under a specific condition (when Desktop cannot get a live agent-authored close diary). The verb 'write' and resource 'session_diary evidence' are specific, and the scenario differentiates it from siblings like nexo_session_diary_write.

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 explicitly provides the context for using this tool: as a fallback when Desktop cannot obtain a live agent-authored close diary. It implies not to use when such a diary is available, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not conditions.

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