diary_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the entry is timestamped and persistent per agent, but does not explain whether entries are appended or overwritten, required permissions, or any side effects. This leaves ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and providing context in the second. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 lacks output details; no output schema exists and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, entry ID). For a write tool, additional behavioral context (e.g., whether it appends or replaces) would improve completeness.

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% and clearly describes parameters (entry, topic, agentId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate for a baseline score of 3.

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 'Write a timestamped diary entry' with a specific resource (diary-{agentId}) and lists example use cases (code review findings, architecture decisions, ops incidents). This distinguishes it from siblings like diary_read.

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 provides context for use ('Use for code review findings...') but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. The listed examples make the purpose clear, and the sibling diary_read implies the complementary read operation.

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