log_wear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it states the operation is append-only ('Appends to the wear log'), limits side effects ('never modifies the catalogue'), and exposes the date default behavior. It does not mention return values or permission requirements, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler. The primary action, side-effect constraint, and date default are each given their own sentence and are front-loaded.

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?

For a three-parameter append tool, the core facts are covered: what action is performed, that it does not touch the catalogue, and the optional date behavior. The main gap is lack of any hint about the note parameter or the returned result, but neither is critical for a minimal correct call.

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 low (33%), and the description compensates only partially. 'Date defaults to today' adds real meaning beyond the schema, and 'Record that a garment was worn' contextualizes garment_id, but the note parameter receives no semantic guidance. This is adequate but 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 opens with a concrete verb and object—'Record that a garment was worn'—and clarifies the target is the wear log, not the catalogue. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_wear_history and list_garments.

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 establishes when to use it: any time a wear event should be appended, with date defaulting to today. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'never modifies the catalogue' contrast provides useful context for choosing it over catalogue operations.

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