frank_append

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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds important behavior: entries can never be edited or deleted, the entry is hash-chained onto the previous one, and the return shape is {id, project, event_type}. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The key behavior and return format are stated immediately, and the warning about append-only is directly actionable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly includes the return shape. The core mechanics and irreversibility are covered, but app_id semantics and potential error/confirmation behavior are absent. Slightly incomplete for a 4-required-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that project, event_type, and content compose the event, but it never mentions app_id, what values are valid, or how content should be structured beyond being an object. Partial compensation, with a notable gap.

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 states the specific verb 'Append' and the resource 'shared FRANK governance ledger', with a concrete payload shape. It clearly distinguishes this write tool from sibling read/verify tools like frank_read and frank_verify by emphasizing append-only semantics.

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?

Provides clear usage context: append-only ledger, so agents should write settled facts and not drafts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or spell out when-not-to-use, but the instruction is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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