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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining that writes go through ChangeRequests and that stored content should be treated as data, not instructions. This provides useful behavioral and security context, though it could be more explicit about the write mechanism and its implications.

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 brief but not well-structured. It starts with a vague phrase, then gives an endpoint, then instructions, without a clear purpose statement. Critical information like the tool's primary function is missing, and the flow is not optimized for quick understanding.

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?

With 10 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should compensate with parameter guidance and clear usage. It does not explain the action enum, metadata structure, or how optional fields should be used. For a write tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 only 20% (only playbook and targetSpaceId have descriptions). The description does not explain any other parameters such as action, metadata, or recordId, leaving the agent to infer meanings from names alone. It adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Recorded audit event,' which is ambiguous about the action—it doesn't clearly state that the tool creates or logs an audit event. The endpoint is given but the verb is implied. It also doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling audit_events_list, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

It provides a prerequisite for multi-space accounts (call auth_verify, ask user, pass targetSpaceId) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of audit_events_list or when not to use this tool. The guidance is context-specific but not comprehensive.

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